Not so sporting Strauss
Much was made of Strauss recalling Angelo Matthews when England played Sri Lanka, but it seems he's less keen on sportsmanship against South Africa. Smith has cramp and, as it's an injury that he didn't bring into the game, the current laws suggest he should get a runner. I remember in the past Aussie Dave burbling about the fact that he didn't believe that runners should be allowed for cramp but, while there is a strong argument supporting that view, that isn't how most international teams play it.
So it was particularly stange to see Strauss decline the runner for Smith, and even more so when I understand (I'm not watching so relying on texts from those with Sky!!) Owais Shah, England's worst fielder, mysteriously left the field for a few overs as things got tight towards the end of the South Africa innings.
13 comments:
As a sportsman, He should have let the runner on pitch. thats bad cricket in my opinion
In his after-match comments Strauss suggested that it was the umpires who felt that a runner should not be permitted. I doubt he tried too hard to persuade them otherwise!
I wonder wheher Strauss would have called Angelo back if the Collingwood incident hadn't happened and I suspect that most players I've spoken to think that Collingwood was right then.
I find it odd that that sort of incident doesn't happen more often.
We avoid people in the street because we make eye contact and steer away - usually batsmen and fielders are looking at the ball.
I would argue that cramp is not an 'injury' and therefore Strauss was well within his rights to refuse the runner.
I agree with idw - Smith wasn't injured or ill. He got cramp, perhaps because he wasn't fit enough after several months without competitive cricket. In any event, the Laws say that this is a matter for the umpires to decide - so Strauss should have had no part in the decision, and clearly the umpires thought that a runner wasn't justified.
2 separate issues there with the same theme - tiredness.
Firstly, Strauss was right in not allowing a runner for Smith for reasons mentioned in other posts. Though that decision should never have been his to make.
And secondly, Shah should not have been allowed to be replaced by a 12th man. Whether he was tired or England were trying to hide their worst fielder, they should have fielded with 10 men only.
But again that decision should have been made by the umpires who for some reason are trying to avoid being caught up in any controversy.
If Smith is going to get 140 and single handedly carry his team relatively close to victory, he deserves cramp in my view - his fault for batting so well and for so long. It would have been madness to allow him a runner and give him a potential advantage. You definintely wouldn't see the Auzzies doing that.
Also agree Shah should not have been allowed to leave the field or England should field with 1 less. Really don't like this tactic of feigning an injury for your worse fielder. Mysteriously it never seems to happen to people like Collingwood who is consistently Englands best in the field.
no runner.
no sub fielder.
no argument.
Hawkey didn't get a runner when he nearly passed out getting a 'ton' at the Vine - merely a glass of water!!!
The umpires clearly didn't agree that Smith should have a runner according to all the press reports - and they are the first port of call.
Interesting that The Mail claims that the England bowlers are 'deliberately' finishing up so that the batsmen have to 'run round ' them. Is this any different to normal? Else they would be running up/on the wicket and neither batsmen nor bowlers are permitted to do that!
Neil
I agree with most posts that no runner should be allowed for cramp. Its a fitness/tiredness issue rather than an injury.
Also agree that no sub should be allowed. hard to police but more should be done.
I've also had an idea for quite a while that in the event of a batsman requiring a runner, the feilding captain should be able to nominate who the runner is. This would avoid the batting team bringing on a fast runner to replace a slow one and ensure they don't get an advantage from the situation
But surely then the fielding captain would nominate the slowest player, thus gaining an advantage himself?
I think that's probably the point - no one would then call for a runner unless they really needed one.
I think Cramp is an issue that has to be dealt with fitness. Really no runner should be allowed if someone is suffering from cramps.
Post a Comment