Shane Warne can be a genius but prediction can be a fixing too

shared by A bisht on Tuesday, March 01, 2011

It can't be said for certain, why Andrew Strauss, the England captain, called Shane Warne a genius, when he got to know that Warney had already predicted the outcome of the India-England match (that it'll be a tie).

One can be very unsure for a couple of reasons:

1) it may be a sarcastic remark by Strauss

2) it may be a careless remark, as he was quite saddened by the fact that England managed to pull a tie, when India seems to have given them the game in platter.

3) it can be a remark to distract the world from the real doings beneath.

Please don't look the third reason with a raised brow, even if you want to.

As -- Can't it be another fixing, involving English and India? With Warne having some role to play in it. He may have been a 'better' who is close to the bookies.

After all -- How is fixing in its basic form explained ?

Isn't it ensuring a particular outcome?

This outcome was known to Warne before hand; how? that is a matter of investigation, and going thru ups and downs; the outcome known before hand is ensured by the two teams.

This not skeptism. This's looking things with an equal eye.

Had the cricketing fraternity taken the news that casually, if it involved Pakistan?

What Pakistani players have been accused of is staging an outcome on the bookie instructions; playing a dot ball here, balling a no ball there! How can it be different from the issue we are discussing now?

No one is defending Pakistan; or blaming England or India. What is being put forth is: doesn't Shane Warne's remark, demand an investigation into the matter?

Warne's prediction, can be a work of a genius; but can't there be a possiility of a fixing?

18 comments:

straight point said...

yesterday after the tie against england my brother said... india will not win against south africa. i am waiting till the result of that match... and if india do lose... will surely launch an investigation how he knew it before anybody...

A Bisht said...

@StraightPoint______The post is not discussing, "can anyone predict an outcome or not?". In fact, in countries where Betting is legal; most people use their instincts to decide which team to bet on.

The issue here is, if a team is accused of betting, on similar reasons, that the match was decided before hand. Then why can't this instance come under the purview of a Fixing.

so the issue here is, one can't have different rules for different people.

As already said, it can be the genius of Warne, but can't it be Fixing?

Golandaaz said...

I have a question....

Why did Swann and Sehezad not attempt a 2nd run?

One of them would have been run-out; most likely; and the the game would still have been a tie.

There was a remote possibility that India could have fudged up the run-out

The last ball was very anti-climactic....

1. Dhoni did not go for a win because he did not call all his fielders in
2. England never attempted a 2nd run
3. When the ball was fielded at mid-off, I did not see the ball being thrown back to the bowler (may be mid-off did)

If this were Pakistan we all know how these things would be interpreted....

A Bisht said...

@Golandaaz________You have raised the very apt question.

Why didn't they go for the second run?

And as you said, they never tried.

But, India can't be removed from the picture altogether. If batters didn't try; Indians weren't seen in any hurry to counter the second run either.

Although all this can be a mere speculation. But as you said, what have been the world's interpretation, if one of the teams involved Pakistan.

In addition, if Pakistan have been party to such a match, with suspecting post match remarks, then the world would have said -- How come some one predict a tie in such a high scoring game?

As, if a high scoring game and the the team chasing second managing to get those runs; is a least probable incident; having a tie has even less likelihood.

Shridhar Jaju said...

There are a lot of cases on Twitter and other online forums where people predict the outcome of a match before it has happened and get it right. If ACU were to investigate all these cases, it would be stretched beyond belief!

I don't think that is the right way to go about deciding which cases to investigate, irrespective of whether the comments or tweets come from an Australian or an Englishman or a Pakistani or an Indian!

A Bisht said...

@Shridhar_Jaju_________You are right that, this is not the way to decide which cases to be brought under investigation.

And the post is not discussing "whether it's beyond human capacity to predict something or not?"

As said, Shane Warne, who is a gifted person nevertheless, may have predicted the "Tie".

The post is debating, how ICC decides on what cases it should investigate. How cricketing fraternity decides when to raise voice and when to keep mum? Isn't Pakistan, investigated, one similar reasons?

Golandaaz, in comments has raised a point too.

It can all be speculation, but can't it be fixing.

On a cursory glance: hadn't the match all the ingredients of suspicion:

1) A high scoring game
2) Team batting second, managing to get those runs
3) match resulting in a Tie

Aren't all these, least likely incidents. Have least probability?

i again say, all this can be speculation, and human mind's suspecting tendencies; But can't it be fixing?

Shridhar Jaju said...

AB, I don't know how to explain my point over here... but looking at it one way, all the games played between Test sides in this World Cup are likely to be high-scoring games as well.

On the other hand, whoever said that low-scoring games cannot be fixed! Same goes with the result... why is a 'Tie' a fix and an outright win not a fix but a natural result. If you want to look at it that way, every game will have points where you will be able to smell a fix.

My point here is that if we look at it that way, there is no game that we'll assume as being played fairly. I do not want to say that we should be so determined in not looking at it that way that we miss glaring suspicions of a fix.

Now, in some peoples' opinions, the points you made above that were the ingredients of the India - England 'tie' would qualify as "glaring suspicions" of a fix.

Over here, I must say that ICC's ACU must be having a criteria about what they would consider as "glaring evidences" and what they would consider as casual coincidences. If their criteria were to include every high-scoring tie, it would amount to unprecedented work load for those fellows.

Instead, I think that they should use pointers that gather from their groundwork and then if coupled with pointers from the game it still smells suspicious, it is worth an investigation. Their groundwork needs to be strong though with a good network of trusted investigators!

straight point said...

And how you can say for sure that I was commenting on my brother's capacity to predict and not fixing?

If one wants to fly a kite... Even sky is not the limit...

A Bisht said...

Shridhar_Jaju______All the points you made are valid. And there's no rule which says, certain match cannot be fixed.

And Shridhar, no one is disputing all those points. The post is debating "Why this match can't come under fixing?"

If ICC can investigate, players based on what is coming on tabloids; then why a statement from Shane Warne, a cricket legend, be considered sufficient enough to put the thing under scanner?

So rather than saying that, the write-up is looking things from a pre-occupied frame of mind; why not say, the write-up is "questioning the methods ICC uses for determining what to investigate and what to leave as something casual?"

Take for instance in the Zimbabwe game, Australia, scored very slowly, in the initial overs. If ICC can question Pakistan, on Spot fixing. Why can't this Australia game be probed too. For one simple question : Why they scored slowly?

I agree, it's not possible to probe all games. And it's wrong to see every game with suspicion. But if previous Fixing probes are seen; then was the tie a usual game? Set aside the number of runs scored, or whether English batsman chose not to go for the second run... A game about which a legend says: He expected the game to be a Tie. Can't be called usual. OR could it?

A Bisht said...

@Straightpoint_________ That is what I'm saying. The fact that, no one can say for sure, what the real reason behind the remark is; hence, unless investigated, both are possible.

The issue can be nothing but speculation. Or it may have substance to it.

Shridhar Jaju said...

AB, you say that the essential question that your write-up asks is "Why this match can't come under fixing?" Right?

Now, for that, I would say there is no reason why it cannot come under the scanner! It definitely can!

But then, my point is that every match can! If I were a spy, I would find something suspicious in every match.

You yourself say "I agree, it's not possible to probe all games. And it's wrong to see every game with suspicion." So we are in agreement here.

Then you looked back at previous fixing probes. The investigation launched on something published in a tabloid was done because of a solid proof that they had published... and not just circumstantial evidence that will not hold up in a court of law!

The groundwork that should have been done by the ACU was done by that tabloid.

About the Aus-Zim game, I hope that it is not being investigated ONLY for the slow start. I mean, if that were the case, they should investigate Kenya for the 30-odd wides, England for dropping so many against Netherlands and allowing 292 on board, and I can make this list longer...

What I am trying to say is that I hope ACU is investigating the Aus-Zim game due to other suspicions that they may have had from their groundwork coupled with the fact that the scoring rate was slow. Only after the groundwork throws up suspicions should the scoring rates should be looked at as "suspiciously slow"... otherwise, we may never end up enjoying the game for what it is!

A Bisht said...

Shridhar_Jaju_________Shridhar, with agreement with you on many points. Here are the points that I disagree with:

1) This is not "Any" match

2) Is it necessary that every time, APU acts, it's when some agency, be it media or someone else brings the matter to their notice.

This is not 'Any match': You will also agree that, words coming out of a common Joe; and a legend don't weigh equally.

Complemting the above fact is another fact. Warne's prediction could have become less weighty, if he had predicted a win or Loss. Warne redicting a 'Tie'takes the matter to an altogether different level.

Cricket is not Football, where scores Tied are a more usual occurrence. Just look for, How many sores have been tied in cricket in recent past, or all time. Each team getting a single point out of two, in case of a rain ruined match is a more likly possibility; but scores tied, at any match. low scoring or high, is least likely.

Although Golandaaz, has made an excellent point, here at comments, I will not peg it, as it'll accuse the write-up of being highly speculative. But, not hailing it doesn't mean, I under estimate the power of observing human behavior and actions.

Govind Raj said...

Too many questions, too many of them.

I was furious when Zaheer and Munaf ran that mad run without adding anything to total of what turned out to be the last ball of Indian innings. I too had told my Mom that this match might be decided by that particular run.

Was it just 2 sets of tail-enders running out of ideas ?

Or was there anything deeper down ?

The involvement of Warne makes me suspicious. Let ICC be Warned !

On second thoughts...

Is the whole Cup fixed ?
Is ICC the Master Fixer ?
Just to increase the sagging interest of the audience, are all the people 'hand in glove' with Dhoni and Co ?

A Bisht said...

@GovindRaj_____Ya there are too many questions. And after cricket tasted the flavor of Bookie money; no possibility can't be ruled out.

Just as Pakistan OR many years ago India, were words enough to give any story match fixing angle. Warne's involvement, should Warn ICC.

On contrary, all these questions can nothing but speculation. The question is, what exactly makes ICC's ACU bring a matter under its radar.

namya said...

Come on AB, are you joking? Warne wouldn't put it on Twitter but bet on it at some 500 times to make money.. we need a CBI investigation in to why SP's brother is predicting a SA victory :)

A Bisht said...

@namya____________Ya it can be true too. i may indeed be joking. Only God knows right now. :)

Shridhar Jaju said...

I don't know, AB... I just think you are speculating with an overly cautious approach to cricket's results!

Namya makes a valid point about why would he predict it on Twitter if he knew it would be fixed! Surely, he would have known there will be eyebrows raised! A blonde showman that he is (and a little dumb too as only he can send a message intended for a mistress to his wife ;-)), but I still don't think he would have put his prediction on Twitter had he known it to be a fix. Fixers work in secrecy, that is their business... not in showmanship!

About the points where you disagreed,

1) This was not 'any' match. But AB, there will be many similarly high-profile games through this World Cup. It is not possible to watch all of them under the microscope.

2)I agree to you second point that it should not be some outsider who brings the matter to their notice every time ACU acts. But that is why I mentioned their own groundwork in my previous comments. They should be the ones who should gather all the dirty information from rat holes, which will allow them to then decide which matches to place under microscope. Stratified sampling is not the way to go about this, in my opinion!

knowledge_eater said...

our whole life is fixed. :)

I predicted Ireland will win against England. I knew that. the difference between my comment and warne comment was, that he turns the red cherry and white rasgulla and I can turn the same amount with yellow tennis ball. Ergo no-one contacted me and no-one will doubt me. No-one even RTed me. :)

And my word verification to post this comment was "stsach" = Sachin Tendulkar Sach what a coincident.

about me...

BCC!straight point (sp) is restless... relentless... but a fun loving guy... likes to live life to fullest... trying to discover himself through cricket... welcome to this little world of his...

sp is also a bored member at BCC!

sp tweets

     


    © straight points
    straight points by sp is licensed under a creative commons attribution noncommercial-no derivative works 2.5 india license. based on a work at straightpoints.blogspot.com
    this blog takes no responsibility for statements posted by participants

    this blog is best viewed with Mozilla FireFox at a resolution of 1280 x 800 pixels
    thanks for the visit!!