Message Board Archives

ESPNcricinfo's UK Editor Andrew Miller is not pulling any punches in that site's editorial 'Jason Holder slow-over ban is just ICC killjoys at work'. In yesterday's posting, he writes

It's time the governing body had a re-think about what purpose over rate requirements serve, and whether they are achieving the desired goal. It does feel a bit ridiculous when, as Miller sarcastically notes, "never mind the scorecard, the West Indies captain was a full two overs short of fulfilling his obligations to an entertainment-starved public."

Good to know it's not just us that feel that way.

You can read the full article at ESPNcricinfo

Full Story

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com


The law is an ass.

Grounds for an appeal...

MANY YEARS AGO I HAVE CITED IN THIS

FORUM MY BELIEF THAT MOST IF NOT ALL

THE MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL

CRICKET CONSPIRATORS , AKA THE ICC ,

HAVE CONSPIRED AT EVERY TWIST & TURN

TO DO THINGS THAT WERE HARMFUL TO

OUR PLAYERS DOMINANCE IN

INTERNATIONAL CRICKET .


Let me once again cite some indisputable facts regarding the
Actions of the Conspirators in the ICC .

1. AT THE ZENITH OF OUR PLAYERS

DOMINANCE IN INTERNATIONAL CRICKET

OUT OF THE BLUE THE ICC DECIDED TO

CURTAIL INTERNATIONAL CRICKET TOURS.



IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE

HEYDAYS OF OUR PLAYERS DOMINANCE IN

INTERNATIONAL CRICKET WE HAD NO

REGIONAL CRICKET LEAGUE , AND MOST

OF OUR PLAYERS PLAYED CRICKET IN

ENGLAND .


IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT

THE INTERNATIONAL TOUR SCHEDULE

ALLOWED FOR MANY MATCHES BETWEEN THE

TEST MATCHES . THIS OBVIOUSLY

ALLOWED VISITING TEAMS THE ABILITY

TO GET ACCLIMATIZED TO THE PITCHES

AND THE WEATHER .


MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT THESE MATCHES

ENSURED THAT VISITING TEAMS PLAYERS

SKILLS WERE FINELY HONED IN ALL

ASPECTS OF THE GAME .


ALL THIS OCCURRED WITHOUT THE REGION

HAVING A REGIONAL CRICKET LEAGUE ,

DUE TO THE GROSS INCOMPETENCE OF THE

WORST INTERNATIONAL CRICKET BOARD IN

THE COMMONWEALTH .


THEN ENGLAND DECIDED TO LIMIT THE

NUMBER OF CRICKETERS PLAYING CRICKET

IN ENGLAND . I AM FIRMLY CONVINCED

THAT THIS WAS CRAFTLY PLANNED BY

ENGLAND .


ALLOW ME AT THIS JUNCTURE TO ASK

THIS SALIENT QUESTION :

WHEN THE ICC DECIDED TO PASS A LAW

STATING THAT PACE BOWLERS CAN ONLY

BOWL 1 BOUNCER PER OVER ; WHICH

INTERNATIONAL CRICKET TEAM HAD THE

FASTEST BOWLERS IN THE WORLD ?????

Now I seriously doubt that the ICC
has spoken to those in the Stewardship of West Indies Cricket .
I firmly believe that the International Cricket Conspirators
enjoy the fact that the WICBC is
governed by unprincipled People , who cherish their 90 years old Structure so much that they bluntly
refuse to change it .

In reply to mikesiva

Yep. Clive Lloyd recommended it in his capacity as the head of cricket committee of the ICC..

In reply to mikesiva

Generally laws are made for a specific reason at the time

Laws and rules can be changed and must be changed when they are no longer relevant

Test cricket has changed

Test matches are ending in 3 and 4 days on a regular basis

Teams are regularly making 300+ in a day.

Batsmen SR have increased as players are playing more T20s and transfering that batting skill to test cricket.

Time to relook at this specific law.

Team management ...especially the coach....should have assisted Holder with this overrate problem...they must have been aware of it and the consequences to Holder.

In reply to Narper

Well said.

Under normal circumstances if a match ended in a draw because of slow over rate as a tactic, then definitely the offending captain should be suspended. But that's not what happened in the 2nd Test. A regular test match is five days with a total of 450 overs. The test match lasted fewer than 3 days and only 232 overs, with England being bowled twice, with a total of 101 overs, while West Indies batted 133 overs and lost 10 wickets. If anything, the weakness of England deprived fans of 2 days of test cricket or 218 overs! If anything England should be charged instead of depriving St. Lucians from seeing the World's #1 all rounder, Jason Holder. ICC suspended Holder for embarrassing England and nothing more and nothing less

In reply to Sylobeauty

Please understand that in ALL Conspiracies involving International
Cricket , England is always at the
Center .

In reply to Narper What help Holder needed? You play a game to win and that's what he did. We have four fast bowlers and yet Holder used Chase for 8 overs in the first inning. The suspension was harsh and cruel to say the least. Let's not forget on day 1, we had several DRS reviews and also change of innings since England got bowled out before tea. If the match ended in a draw because Holder used slow over rate as a tactic then I would understand. But match was over within 3 days? Man Holder needed no help; it's Joe Root and England that needed help from their coach but ICC jumped in and gave them some help by suspending Holder.

In reply to Sylobeauty

Holder needed all the bowlers to be aware of the over rate. Management was responsible for educating all the bowlers including the fielders. You play to win within the laws of the game otherwise you are likely to suffer consequences which Holder has suffered today


It is the law and it has been around for a long time...this Holder's violation is not a one off incident. Have you protested this law before? Is Holder the only captain who has suffered from violation of this law?

Holder was suspended before for this. He missed a Test and was fined in New Zealand in December 2017 for the same offence with Brathwaite taking over the captaincy on that occasion too.

In reply to greypatch

Appeal on what grounds?

In reply to Narper
Not because it's the law means it must not be criticized or repealed.

Apart from this reprehensible one, the ICC has been piss poor in its general management of the sport, like India being allowed to do as it likes, without accountability to anyone.

A full cleansing of this spineless organization is required with decision makers with a vested interest in development their main priority, put in place to replace the ones who primarily want to be slaves to India's money & stooges to it's influence.

However, I do agree that Holder should've been monitored & advised by the coaching panel on his overate lapses.

The one bouncer per over was good ,because it preserved life.West Indian fast bowlers during their dominance were bowling 3 and four bouncers per over,many batsmen got hurt over the years but no fatalities.It was a fact that many batsmen gave their wickets away for fear of getting seriously hurt.

In reply to granite

Many? Armanath, Boon, Border, Miandad?......

In reply to Priapus

Gooch.

In reply to davo

you are replying to me but obviously you did not read my posts

read my 2/5/19 6:14:01 PM post