• 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


Parkside said:
Not so sure there's that much criticism of the short format as such, it's more directed at the Hundred(16.4 appears to cause offense). Certainly evening cupties back in the day were one of the most enjoyable forms of cricket. It's also brought about improved fielding and improvised shot selection. Blocking the school holidays for the Hundred is the main bone of contention.
T20 reserved for Friday evening's and Sunday afternoons throughout the summer months and the 4 day game could run alongside it- short blocks of both separately.
Elephant in the room is undoubtedly the superfluous Hundred.
Click to expand...
Yeah would totally disagree with all of that, personally think there needs to be a designated window in popular part of the summer to grow the game preferably the school holidays

Think that should be T20 rather than hundred balls and only one tournament.
Not disagree with that I meant to say
 
Last edited:
rentaghost said:
You know your stuff and I know you well and have absolutely no doubt this is the case. However what I’m finding is everyone likes bazball til it goes wrong. They love the adventurous strokeplay until someone is out and becomes reckless and many happy with the thought of positive declarations until we lose because of one.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that though, is there? Nobody should be blinded by a concept or idea that they develop tunnel vision and everything becomes linear - right or wrong, good or bad.

'Bazball' will get some things wrong and some things right, and everyone should recognise that. Ultimately it'll be judged on how much the balance tips and in which favour.
 
AC Mack said:
Nothing wrong with that though, is there? Nobody should be blinded by a concept or idea that they develop tunnel vision and everything becomes linear - right or wrong, good or bad.

'Bazball' will get some things wrong and some things right, and everyone should recognise that. Ultimately it'll be judged on how much the balance tips and in which favour.
Click to expand...
Well it will hence the level of criticisms mid match over a concept that has seen us lose one test match in a year playing breathtaking risk and reward cricket is quite staggering IMO.
 
rentaghost said:
Well it will hence the level of criticisms mid match over a concept that has seen us lose one test match in a year playing breathtaking risk and reward cricket is quite staggering IMO.
Click to expand...

A lot of people are probably just sceptics because it's not what they know or what they've been brought up to understand as test cricket.

Apparently TMS are still quite cautious over it in general, whereas Sky are all over it.
 
AC Mack said:
A lot of people are probably just sceptics because it's not what they know or what they've been brought up to understand as test cricket.

Apparently TMS are still quite cautious over it in general, whereas Sky are all over it.
Click to expand...

That’s a bit of a Patronising view. Simon Mann on TMS slated not enforcing the follow on in NZ ‘live’ and we lost by a run. He slated the declaration here ‘live’ and we lost by two wickets.

It’s not people being revisionist. I thought it was a shit decision at the time and I still do now.
 
rentaghost said:
Yep gave himself enough time to take 20 wickets and would have won comfortably but for poor catching and crucially losing their frontline spinner. Be prepared to be furious many more times in the future.
Click to expand...
Ifs buts and coconuts don’t win cricket matches
 
NorthCountryBoy said:
That’s a bit of a Patronising view. Simon Mann on TMS slated not enforcing the follow on in NZ ‘live’ and we lost by a run. He slated the declaration here ‘live’ and we lost by two wickets.

It’s not people being revisionist. I thought it was a shit decision at the time and I still do now.
Click to expand...

Patronising how?
 
NorthCountryBoy said:
That’s a bit of a Patronising view. Simon Mann on TMS slated not enforcing the follow on in NZ ‘live’ and we lost by a run. He slated the declaration here ‘live’ and we lost by two wickets.

It’s not people being revisionist. I thought it was a shit decision at the time and I still do now.
Click to expand...
I still don’t get your logic though. That decision was entirely to give England the best possible chance of winning a game with the flattest pitch possible and weather likely to be a factor. A win which they would easily have got had it not been for some terrible wicket keeping and an injury to Mo. You said you don’t mind risky 2nd innings declarations which can also result in losing a match from a winning position in search of a win. What’s the difference?
 
rentaghost said:
I still don’t get your logic though. That decision was entirely to give England the best possible chance of winning a game with the flattest pitch possible and weather likely to be a factor. A win which they would easily have got had it not been for some terrible wicket keeping and an injury to Mo. You said you don’t mind risky 2nd innings declarations which can also result in losing a match from a winning position in search of a win. What’s the difference?
Click to expand...

We went into the match with a 7/10 wicky and a bloke with an Ashes bowling average of 65 who hadn’t bowled a red ball in 18 months so while I get your point we shouldn’t be massively shocked either.

On the 3rd innings declarations I remember a tour of the West Indies in 2009 (soz, I’m an anorak) when Strauss was ultra cautious and they held on for draws with their last pair in two tests. In those situations I’m happy to give the opponents a 5% chance if it ups ours by, say, 15%. Stokes did one of those 3rd innings declarations in Pakistan and we pulled off a great win.

In the first innings you still don’t know if you’re going get skittled for 150 in your next dig though. That’s why I think it’s reckless, especially when you’re going at 8 an over at the time. If it’s Jimmy and Panesar at the crease then I get it a bit more.
AC Mack said:
Patronising how?
Click to expand...

The way it was phrased mate (or just my take on it when I’m pissed off!) was that people who didn’t support the declaration were just stuck in old ways. I don’t think that’s the case, they just weighed up the percentages in their mind at the time and thought it was a daft call.

England still also need to factor in that a draw is a lot better than a defeat.
 
Last edited:
NorthCountryBoy said:
We went into the match with a 7/10 wicky and a bloke with an Ashes bowling average of 65 who hadn’t bowled a red ball in 18 months so while I get your point we shouldn’t be massively shocked either.

On the 3rd innings declarations I remember a tour of the West Indies in 2009 (soz, I’m an anorak) when Strauss was ultra cautious and they held on for draws with their last pair in two tests. In those situations I’m happy to give the opponents a 5% chance if it ups ours by, say, 15%. Stokes did one of those 3rd innings declarations in Pakistan and we pulled off a great win.

In the first innings you still don’t know if you’re going get skittled for 150 in your next dig though. That’s why I think it’s reckless, especially when you’re going at 8 an over at the time. If it’s Jimmy and Panesar at the crease then I get it a bit more.
Click to expand...
To be fair in Pakistan he set them 340 in 4 sessions on a pitch that was flat as a pancake and the needed 80 with 5 wickets left. He gave them a lot more than a 5% chance of winning IMO. It was an unheard of declaration really - they only needed to score at 3.5 an over with loads of time to do it. Loads on here were kicking off in a similar way to this week.

I think when people play cricket for a long time you can get a very fixed idea of what is the right thing to do because its been built on 40 years of playing and watching. For many moving away from cricketing norms is hard to accept.
 
NorthCountryBoy said:
We went into the match with a 7/10 wicky and a bloke with an Ashes bowling average of 65 who hadn’t bowled a red ball in 18 months so while I get your point we shouldn’t be massively shocked either.

On the 3rd innings declarations I remember a tour of the West Indies in 2009 (soz, I’m an anorak) when Strauss was ultra cautious and they held on for draws with their last pair in two tests. In those situations I’m happy to give the opponents a 5% chance if it ups ours by, say, 15%. Stokes did one of those 3rd innings declarations in Pakistan and we pulled off a great win.

In the first innings you still don’t know if you’re going get skittled for 150 in your next dig though. That’s why I think it’s reckless, especially when you’re going at 8 an over at the time. If it’s Jimmy and Panesar at the crease then I get it a bit more.


The way it was phrased mate (or just my take on it when I’m pissed off!) was that people who didn’t support the declaration were just stuck in old ways. I don’t think that’s the case, they just weighed up the percentages in their mind at the time and thought it was a daft call.

England still also need to factor in that a draw is a lot better than a defeat.
Click to expand...

I know the original debate was about the decision to declare, but my post was a general point about 'bazball' and the all or nothing stance that some people take. My previous post explained my viewpoint on that. I'll post it below.

AC Mack said:
Nothing wrong with that though, is there? Nobody should be blinded by a concept or idea that they develop tunnel vision and everything becomes linear - right or wrong, good or bad.

'Bazball' will get some things wrong and some things right, and everyone should recognise that. Ultimately it'll be judged on how much the balance tips and in which favour.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top