Andrew Strauss is a disgrace to cricket

I like it when Smith spits the dummy. Great to watch.

Originally posted by Zort Boy
I like it when Smith spits the dummy. Great to watch.

He's only a baby, still time to grow up.

Funny that Vettori showed Andrew what good sportsmanship is all about when he recalled Collingwood in a pressure game.

Karma, baby!



Anyway, here's an interesting article for the English:
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/427344.html

Originally posted by Crowley
Funny that Vettori showed Andrew what good sportsmanship is all about when he recalled Collingwood in a pressure game.

You mean doing exactly what Andrew Strauss just did against Sri Lanka? Glad you agree Strauss is sportsmanlike. (Overly sportsmanlike, perhaps - most commentators are saying he shouldn't have recalled Mathews).

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.

One more time 🙂

There are such rules. The laws are clear. It is the umpires' decision. They decided Smith was not entitled to a runner. The confusion arises because they then asked Strauss if he wanted to waive the rules at that point, and Strauss saw no reason to do so. But the umpires made a decision, and that decision was "no".

Unless you don't think they know the laws of the game?

I don't think Smith deserves a runner. If he sustained an injury during the game, or his innings, then yes, he should have one. However, he wanted a runner because he was cramping.. which really, is a lack of conditioning.. so he should NOT get a runner.

In tennis, a similar thing happens. A player cannot take an injury time out for a lack of conditioning (eg. cramp, fatigure etc) but can if the player sustains an injury. I think that is a pretty good way to go. This is the top level of the sport and you need to put in the work to succeed.

Originally posted by mtthw
You mean doing exactly what Andrew Strauss just did against Sri Lanka? Glad you agree Strauss is sportsmanlike. (Overly sportsmanlike, perhaps - most commentators are saying he shouldn't have recalled Mathews).

Either a player is a good sportsman, or not. Which is it for Muppet?

Originally posted by mtthw
One more time 🙂

There are such rules. The laws are clear. It is the umpires' decision. They decided Smith was not entitled to a runner. The confusion arises because they then asked Strauss if he wanted to waive the rules at that point, and Strauss saw no reason to do so. But the umpires made a decision, and that decision was "no".

Unless you don't think they know the laws of the game?

I want this 'courtesy' crap taken out and the umpires need to be basically taken out of the equation too. Hell, if we need impartial medical experts at the game, then so be it.

It needs to be a straight question of:
Is the player in pain and cannot properly continue without a runner?
Yes, means a runner. No, means not. I don't want a senile idiot like Steve Buchnor or an opposing captain seeing the game slip away in the equation at all.

If I hurt my hamstring I can get a runner, but debilitating cramp in the hamstring area is deferred to the opposing captain? Bull.
Hamstrings can get hurt because of improper preparation too, ie. stretching, so should we throw this to the opposition captain too? The same can be said for intercostals. Ad infinitum.
Get hit in the nuts, ankle etc? No ways buddy, you needed more time in the nets so you would've hit the ball with your bat.


Naah, I'd rather we have a 'game doctor' at the ground in future, so we don't have a repeat of this farce.

Originally posted by Crowley
I want this 'courtesy' crap taken out and the umpires need to be basically taken out of the equation too. Hell, if we need impartial medical experts at the game, then so be it.

It needs to be a straight question of:
Is the player in pain and cannot properly continue without a runner?
Yes, means a runner. No, means not.

I'd rather see them get rid of runners completely. Not many other sports have an equivalent - I can't think of any off-hand. In other sports - you're injured, tough. Drop out.

I was playing in a game earlier this year. A player asked for a runner because he had stitch. He was ridiculed by both teams and the umpires - and he later accepted this as reasonable. But you'd have given him a runner? Stitch is cramp. You'll be giving a runner for players being tired next.

Originally posted by Crowley
Either a player is a good sportsman, or not. Which is it for Muppet?

Seems to be obvious to everyone else but you 🙂

Originally posted by mtthw
I'd rather see them get rid of runners completely.

Of course, this does have one drawback. The sheer entertainment value of watching runners in low-level cricket, where they don't really know what they're doing. I once saw a case where both batsmen had a runner, and all four somehow ended up at the same end. The umpires had great difficultly working out exactly who was run out - when they'd finished laughing, that is.

Originally posted by mtthw
I'd rather see them get rid of runners completely. Not many other sports have an equivalent - I can't think of any off-hand. In other sports - you're injured, tough. Drop out.

I was playing in a game earlier this year. A player asked for a runner because he had stitch. He was ridiculed by both teams and the umpires - and he later accepted this as reaso en him a runner? Stitch is cramp. You'll be giving a runner for players being tired next.

In other sports injured players get subbed.


Don't be daft.
I'm merely talking about debilitating leg cramp that inhibits the injured players' running.

Here's a scenario for you: Andrew Strauss gets pinged on the back of the calf by Dale Steyn and sets off on a run. This causes the muscles to spasm and develops into a debilitating cramp. He can't run properly, but he shouldn't have been hit there by a ball either.
Should he get a runner?

Originally posted by mtthw
Seems to be obvious to everyone else but you 🙂

Not Palynka, but he doesn't count right?

Originally posted by Crowley
Not Palynka, but he doesn't count right?

I'd think it's fair to say he doesn't count himself as a cricket fan - he admitted he didn't know the rules.

Originally posted by Crowley
In other sports injured players get subbed.


Don't be daft.
I'm merely talking about debilitating leg cramp that inhibits the injured players' running.

Here's a scenario for you: Andrew Strauss gets pinged on the back of the calf by Dale Steyn and sets off on a run. This causes the muscles to spasm and develops into a debilitating cramp. He can't run ...[text shortened]... properly, but he shouldn't have been hit there by a ball either.
Should he get a runner?

And cricket has the concept of "retired hurt" which is close to being subbed. He could have done that. No other sport allows a person to partially take over for someone while they carry on doing other things at the same time.

I'm not being daft. "I'm merely talking about debilitating leg cramp that inhibits the injured players' running.": swap "leg" for "stomach" and that's stitch. It's professional sport, so we're talking different fitness levels, but it's the same principle.

As the rules stand, a person who gets hit by the ball would deserve a runner, because that's how the rules work. It's not a conditioning issue - it was caused by an incident during the game. Arguing that the rules aren't ideal is one thing, but arguing that people who play by the rules and conventions of tha game are being unsporting is another. It's never been convention that you get a runner for cramp.