England v New Zealand, 4th ODI, The Oval, 25th June

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Yeah, because cricket would be so great to watch if bodyline was still legal...

Some pretty good cricket was played by both sides in 1932-3 with packed houses at all 5 Tests despite the Depression at the time. It was the result the Aussies whinged at and the fact that, generally, they couldn't respond not the lack of entertainment. Had I been a spectator I would have found the series hugely entertaining, certainly in comparison with the last Ashes series in Australia.

Incidentally, Collingwood may be removed but, like Close, for time-wasting rather than unsporting play, according to this:



Collingwood faces ban after slow over-rate

From p.1

Zat wrote:Can we have more hilarity in this match? I'm still giggling at NZ actually winning a match.

Snigger, snigger, snorfle, LOL...

It's been a law-bender of a series thus far.

Game one: The "switch hit". Required the MCC big-wigs/bed-wetters to huddle together and pass some kind of judgement on its legality.

Game two: The thirty minute break for a bite to eat in a game which couldn't be finished and came up short by about thirty minutes. The ICC big-wigs/bed-wetters put their collective minds together and decreed that the law needed a (temporary, for this series only) tinker.

Game three: Boring. Some cricket, but no real law-baiting dramatics.

Game four: Today's shenanigans.

Wonder what game five has in store? An no-holds-barred, all-out gang-bang?

.

Zat wrote:From p.1

Zat wrote:Can we have more hilarity in this match? I'm still giggling at NZ actually winning a match.

Snigger, snigger, snorfle, LOL...

snicker snacker snocker snoot WOW...

Dello wrote:It's been a law-bender of a series thus far.

Game one: The "switch hit". Required the MCC big-wigs/bed-wetters to huddle together and pass some kind of judgement on its legality.

Game two: The thirty minute break for a bite to eat in a game which couldn't be finished and came up short by about thirty minutes. The ICC big-wigs/bed-wetters put their collective minds together and decreed that the law needed a (temporary, for this series only) tinker.

Game three: Boring. Some cricket, but no real law-baiting dramatics.

Game four: Today's shenanigans.

Wonder what game five has in store? An no-holds-barred, all-out gang-bang?

You've forgotten the slow over-rate regulations which cost Collingwood (and the England side) a fine at Bristol and will probably cost him a suspension today thus forcing the selectors to make a change, irrespective of his post-match "apology".

One point that I don't think has been made is that had yesterday's incident occurred in the Caribbean or India and Collingwood had refused to withdraw the appeal there would probably have been a riot and the match would have had to have been abandoned for the players' safety. If he had done the same thing in Pakistan both batsmen would have walked off, the game would have been forfeited and the rest of the tour cancelled.

Yesterday's incident raises serious doubts on Collingwood's ability to captain overseas where diplomacy is at a premium. For those of you who have taken the trouble and wasted your time reading my posts you may know that I have been, until now, a Collingwood fan. I supported the decision to replace Vaughan with him after the last WC and have argued that he should replace Vaughan as captain of the Test side. Whilst not one of the greatest all-rounders he is one of the best out-fielders England has produced since the era of Randall and Gower and I liked his attitude and commitment. His 206 at Adelaide in 2006 was one of the few, if not only, bright spots in a dismal winter.

However what happened yesterday, whilst it may not be strictly defined as cheating, came very close to it. It was taking an unfair advantage and set a very poor example for the lower levels of the game, particularly at youth level. If cricket is going to be played in that way from now on, fine, but I'm no longer going to be interested in it anymore than I'm interested in rugby or football.

The decision regarding Collingwood's future may be taken by the match referee today on other grounds, though. It is sad that, like Close and Gatting, the undoubted achievements of his career will be overshadowed by a moment of needless controversy.