Final Four

fathertime · Status: Offline

RE: Final Four

fathertime · Status: Offline

sir wrote:

dont think people are having a go at your club, you used the law to your advantage. doesnt make the law right and sometimes things like this have to happen before changes are made.

i have...... i do not think what has happened is morally correct. It may be legal....that is all.

the persuader · Status: Offline

fathertime wrote:

it could Sir.........but it could happen to a team that is second and only 4 pts behind 1st. So yes but with a one dayer in the last round.

i think we will find next yr rounds 10 and 11 will be one dayers.

I wouldnt even have a problem with it staying a 2 day game but change the rules to it being a 1st innings result only.

the persuader · Status: Offline

Stocky Stumper wrote:

I agree....absolutely disgusting that two teams did everything in their power to play finals cricket.

You sound very defensive John , very unlike you :)

2 OLD 2 SLOW · Status: Offline

the persuader wrote:

fathertime wrote:

it could Sir.........but it could happen to a team that is second and only 4 pts behind 1st. So yes but with a one dayer in the last round.

i think we will find next yr rounds 10 and 11 will be one dayers.

I wouldnt even have a problem with it staying a 2 day game but change the rules to it being a 1st innings result only.

Not 1 of your brightest post jason,

G Train · Status: Offline

Sobers wrote:

yep give the cup to Berwick now sir, (can't beleive I'd ever say that).

I can't speak for them, but I would say Berwick would've much rather seen Parkfield and Springy Sth in the four over Doveton and Buckley. No offence to Parkfield and Springy Sth as obviously they are last years Grand Finalists, but I just think Doveton are the form team of the comp and Buckley are dangerous and have a good record against berwick over the past 5 years.

the persuader · Status: Offline

2 OLD 2 SLOW wrote:

the persuader wrote:

fathertime wrote:

it could Sir.........but it could happen to a team that is second and only 4 pts behind 1st. So yes but with a one dayer in the last round.

i think we will find next yr rounds 10 and 11 will be one dayers.

I wouldnt even have a problem with it staying a 2 day game but change the rules to it being a 1st innings result only.

Not 1 of your brightest post jason,

why is that Robert , i think with the one day games , luck plays a large part , as a rule the better sides will win the 2 day games 9 out of ten times . Even u could get lucky at say, park oval and get a quick 30 and influence a 1 day game :)

2 OLD 2 SLOW · Status: Offline

silly jason

fathertime · Status: Offline

Yes Doveton are the form team at the moment. And also yes SSCC has not played as well this season as last year. But u cant even try if your not there.

Go Doves...Go Bears........in that order.

the persuader · Status: Offline

G Train wrote:

Sobers wrote:

yep give the cup to Berwick now sir, (can't beleive I'd ever say that).

I can't speak for them, but I would say Berwick would've much rather seen Parkfield and Springy Sth in the four over Doveton and Buckley. No offence to Parkfield and Springy Sth as obviously they are last years Grand Finalists, but I just think Doveton are the form team of the comp and Buckley are dangerous and have a good record against berwick over the past 5 years.

fair call Jarrod, we have been well off our best this year , but as last year told ,anything can happen in finals

the persuader · Status: Offline

2 OLD 2 SLOW wrote:

silly jason

HA!!!!

its been a long day Robert

G Train · Status: Offline

You know what, i've had a good think about all this and I reckon some of you blokes might be over reacting.

At 8-100 odd chasing 250, Parkfield were obviously in a fair bit of trouble on first innings. In my opinion, the declaration was a very very smart move, particularly if there isn't a lot of confidence in the batsman remaining to get the 150 odd required. One big point to remember here is the fact that Buckley could not force Parkfield to follow once they had declared. If Parkfield were bowled out and forced to follow on, they really had no hope of winning reverse outright which would mean they'd miss out on finals. Also knowing that Buckley needed an outright to get into the four, they would've been expecting an early declaration from Buckley (perhaps not as early as it happened), which would then in turn give them some sort of hope of getting the reverse. Therefore, Parkfield did what they thought was the best thing to do to give them a hope of making the finals. You can't criticise a team for that. And it almost paid off. When you really think about it, it was farking sensational piece of captaincy. It wasn't contrived. It wasn't cheating. It wasn't against the spirit of the game, in fact, doing what they did was more in the spirit of the game then if they didn't do it. They gave themselves the best possible chance of making the finals by declaring.

I also believe (and it was proven to be) that the Buckley declaration whilst very brave, was also a brilliant one. Buckley would've been put on the back foot a bit by Harry's declaration and to declare straight away was a great bit of quick thinking. At the end of the day, they got a wicket off the very last ball to snatch a finals berth. They needed to declare to win outright. So what if it was at 0/0? I know when i first heard that i thought it sounded a bit dodgy, but when you really think about it, why is it? If they batted and made 3/65 in ten overs and then declared, no one would be complaining would they? But you know what, they wouldn't have won the match outright which obviously would've meant they wouldn't have made the finals. Isn't that what we are all here to do? Be successful? When you have a good think about it, you can see that Buckley's declaration didn't necessarily have to be contrived or against the spirit of the game either did it?

In my opinion, the Parkfield and Buckley Ridges captains should be commended, not ridiculed.

I feel for the Springy Sth boys, it's obviously a heart breaking way to finish the year, but suck it up and come back stronger next year. There's no point in throwing accusations around or risking damaging strong relationships with other clubs/players over something that is out of your control.

Congratulations to Span, Nanga and the Dovey boys on there massive win also. 14 wickets in a day, farrrk me. Apparently they tipped a few in to celebrate last night too, fantastic effort fellas.

Bards · Status: Offline

I think this comes down to whether there was an agreement for both sides to declare. G-train puts forward a good argument, however I think it relies on the statement that Buckley could not enforce the follow on because parkfield declared. I just read the rule book and it says this.

Rule 15.7 Follow on
A side that bats first and leads on the first innings by not less than 80 runs in a two day, semi final or grand final match shall have the option of requiring the side which bats second to follow on it's first innings.

I can't see where it says that the follow on cannot be enforced if a team has declared.

If this is the case, and Buckley could have enforced the follow on, then we are looking at an agreement between the captains to both declare. This is getting close to contriving a result. If Buckley had the option to make them follow on but chose to declare at 0/0 instead it's dodgy. There is simply no advantage to declare instead of enforcing the follow on. The only reason I can think of doing it is if you told the other captain you would, if they did.

No rules have been broken, so no action can be taken, but I think a onedayer in round 11 is a given next year.

-- Edited by Bards on Monday 1st of March 2010 12:10:45 AM

fathertime · Status: Offline

Yep Bard no rules have been broken. From what i have been told Franks approached ???? from Parkfield abt trying to get one of the teams an outright win.....this was after it was almost impossible for Parkfield to gain their 6 1st innings pts....so an outright or an reverse outright was contrived. Its up to every individual whether they beleive or not whether this was in the spirit of the game.

BATFINK and KARATE · Status: Offline

Surely you jest ....Gtrain...If this had happened to thou loved club I think thou might think different

Darrel Hair · Status: Offline

I'm with Bards on this one. Buckley could have enforced the follow on after Parkfield declared.

The interesting thing is that Buckley declaring their innings closed must take the field and the Parkfield bowler start his run up and wait for the ball to become dead before they can declare their innings closed at 0/0. If you want to argue see the link below.

http://www.lords.org/data/files/law_14_qanda-9669.pdf

max · Status: Offline

sir wrote:

Was talking to a mordi local down at the st kilda fest today who said and i quote" big chance of dov gaining big % next game because the mordi guys really are not interested in next weeks game and just want the season to end"

i hope for the game of cricket mordi dont just lie down and end up having a say on the final four.

UUUUMMM the question just has to be asked ?????? piss poor imo!!

the persuader · Status: Offline

Darrel Hair wrote:

I'm with Bards on this one. Buckley could have enforced the follow on after Parkfield declared.

The interesting thing is that Buckley declaring their innings closed must take the field and the Parkfield bowler start his run up and wait for the ball to become dead before they can declare their innings closed at 0/0. If you want to argue see the link below.

http://www.lords.org/data/files/law_14_qanda-9669.pdf

hhmmmm interesting..........

prince mark · Status: Offline

That's the umpires fault for letting it happen...............

the persuader · Status: Offline

prince mark wrote:

That's the umpires fault for letting it happen...............

How did your incentive based favours go off the mrs go yesterday pi55 head