Saturday, May 25, 2013

Intentionally Under Performing Vs Spot Fixing

Two dominating countries in cricket are playing world cup final. The best bowler of one team is bowling to the best batsman of the other team. In the first over of the match, the bowler intentionally bowled in such a way that, the batsman can hit four. And, the batsman hit four.

Is this fair? Can we criticize the bowler for intentionally under-performing?

During that time, spot fixing was unaware. But, is it possible that, there was spot fixing?

Do we consider it as fair or unfair, based on whether the bowler got money or not, or whether the bowler bowled a bad ball intentionally or not?

Let's suppose, before the match, the bowler decided to bowl a bad ball in a particular over. Now, a bookie came and offered some money to bowl a bad ball in the same over. Now, will it be unfair on the part of the bowler, because, he has taken money for something, for which, he was planning to do anyway?

Another instance.

There are two neighbor countries, and any match between them is a very big thing in both the countries. They are playing in a world cup final. During the last over, when one team needs 13 runs in 6 balls, a moderately good batsman is batting, and a new bowler is bowling on the other side. That bowler has intentionally bowled in such a way that, the batsman can hit six, and the batsman hit six. He also bowled one wide before that. He gave 7 runs in 2 balls intentionally, when the opponent needs 13 runs in 6 balls.

If we ask the same questions, will the answers vary?

Third instance.

One country has two good bowlers, who played together in matches for their country. One of them intentionally bowls in such a way that, he can never get wickets with that kind of bowling. Other one bowls in such a way that, he can get wickets. If we look at the scorecard at the end of the match, one of them would have worse scores.

If we ask the same questions, what would be the answers?

In the first and second instances, let's suppose, if the batsman gets out for the next ball, will the answers vary?

In the third instance, if it is their strategy to tempt batsmen and take wickets, will the answers vary?

First Instance. The match was between India and Australia in 2003 world cup final. McGrath bowled to Sachin. After Sachin hit four, for the next ball, he was out, and match has taken a big turn in the very first over.

Second Instance. The match was between India and Pakistan in 2007 T20 world cup final. Joginder Sharma was bowling to Misbah-ul-Haq. First ball was wide, and then no run. Second ball was six, and third ball was out, and India won in the match.

Third Instance. The bowlers were Kumble and Srinath, and Kumble said this after he retired from cricket.

Do we praise them, just because, their strategy was successful? Let's suppose, if they were not successful for the exact same strategy, are we going to criticize them?

No comments:

Post a Comment