• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state with some features missing, normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Worst decisions in Cricket history

Anthly said:
Worst sporting decision… Greg Chappell making his younger brother Trevor bowl an under arm delivery in a ODI final against NZ.
Yes the Aussies won, but were slated by all . Even the Aussie WK Rod Marsh advised Chappell it wasn't right.
Click to expand...

Aye I’ve seen that one, it was mingin
 

Parkside said:
Correct if perhaps a little pedantic. As I understand it though balls are delivered in batches of 5.Are these not "overs"?
Click to expand...

The Hundreds specifically doesn't use the term "over" in attempt to simplify the language so that newcomers are put off with complicated jargon. An innings is just 100 balls with the fielding team changing ends every 10 balls.
 
Harker with the deciding YES vote on the introduction of T20 cricket to the English domestic season. Basically changed the landscape of not just our domestic game but the game world wide within a few years.

No more Sunday league or 50 over knockout comps or championship cricket in June july and August. And killed the power of whinging members like me.

Then again it made some cricketers multi millionaires and probably stopped the domestic game as we know it from going bankrupt.
 
Worst decision in cricket ever? Some umpire giving me out in about 2003 lbw when not only was my front leg about 6 stumps from the off stump and the ball hit my bat first with the bat having about a foot from my leg. Not even sure anyone on the opposition even appealed.
 
An Australian underarm delivery

A Pakistani captain ruining his own career and dragging the career of a supremely talented bairns down with him by making him bowl no balls for financial gain

A South African captain ruining his career, reputation and life after taking money from bookkeepers to force a result

After those and a whole host of other horrific cricketing decisions, we can maybe start talking about declarations and calls at the toss
 
Darlo1973 said:
No such thing as "16.4", it's called The Hundred.

It's still cricket - just a different form of it. Fairly interesting as an experiment but I expect it to be dead within a few years.
Click to expand...
Last time I looked cricketers played in it, and when I look up the scores on bbc website it’s under cricket.
 
Parkside said:
Yes, that 's why it's been suggested as the worst decision in cricket history.
Click to expand...
That’s fine mate everyone entitled to their opinion.

It was you that said it wasn’t cricket.

So is it the worst decision in cricket history or not cricket as you suggesting?

As it can’t be both.
 
Last edited:
Glenn Mcgrath deciding to have a kickabout before the Edgbaston Test in 2005

You must be logged on to see external links
 
Not getting the outcome that you hoped for does not mean that a decision was incorrect.

Based on the weather forecast for the test and time of day they declared I think the decision was a reasonable one.
 
I don’t agree with the OP at all. While I wouldn’t have declared it is exactly in line with their beliefs when you consider the following:
1. He wants to take the draw out if the equation and do everything he can to win the match. He is quite happy to risk defeat for te win it is the entire philosophy.
2. He needs to take 20 Australian wickets on the flattest pitch we have produced in years.
3. He is aware that time is likely to be taken out of the game due to weather.

People are just conditioned to cricketing norms which have been ripped up by Stokes and McCullum.
 
rentaghost said:
I don’t agree with the OP at all. While I wouldn’t have declared it is exactly in line with their beliefs when you consider the following:
1. He wants to take the draw out if the equation and do everything he can to win the match. He is quite happy to risk defeat for te win it is the entire philosophy.
2. He needs to take 20 Australian wickets on the flattest pitch we have produced in years.
3. He is aware that time is likely to be taken out of the game due to weather.

People are just conditioned to cricketing norms which have been ripped up by Stokes and McCullum.
Click to expand...

Point 1 is daft though (even if it’s what’s happening in reality) and people are fine to question it. The aim should be to win the Ashes overall, not gamble recklessly on the first test.

Net net the new regime has been successful, but Allardyce was at SAFC yet was still the bloke who did the worst team selection I’ve ever seen (starting Toivenen over Defoe in a derby). We shouldn’t just be nodding dogs at everything they do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top