±«Óãtv

A runner should not be allowed for cramp...cramp is not an injury

Disappointed that Strauss didn't allow Smith a runner. I doubt Smith would have requested one if he didn't need it. Adding more confusion to the chaos of a late innings run chase is not something that he would do unnecessarily.

It would not have been as generous a gesture on Strauss' part as it was to recall Matthews the other day (it's the batsman's responsibility to avoid the fielders, not the other way around).

I don't think it was right or smart not to give Smith a runner. At the end of the day they have a lot of games to play in South Africa this winter does Strauss really want this to come back & haunt him??
What will happen when he or another batsman needs a favour from Smith - no chance. KP needs a runner, sorry mate its a recurrance of your injury. And for what? SA were struggling to keep up, never mind win & as you say runners cause havoc especially when tail-enders are in....

The fact that Smith wanted De Villiers to run for him was taking the mick a bit mind. Anyone who can honestly believe the two are of similar speed and athleticism, is slightly deluded!

I think that perhaps Strauss was within his rights. Getting cramp in a day/night ODI is a little different to getting cramp when a test batsman has been toiling away all day in the Indian sun.

You could argue that it would not have hurt had Strauss agreed but I think there is an element of - Why should he?
I think that he got the Angelo Matthews decision bang on and I think that he got this one right to - it was n't as if Smith was doubled over unable to move.

Strauss has already proved he is a good sportsman. I agree with comment 1 cramp is NOT an injury.

I think Strauss should have let Smith have a runner. Anyway, i think the ICC should change the rules there and let the Umpires make the decision on it.

Should Strauss given Smith the runner or not ! it doesn't matter now ! England defiantly deserved there win and that what ppl need to talk about...

It was ironic though that after he was denied the runner, it was Smiths team mates that were making him run, then getting out themselves. I think on the balance of it, although cramp isn't an injury, Strauss should have given him a runner. It would have maintained Strauss' image as a very good sport and I don't think it would have affected Englands chances of winning too much.

Cramp is not an injury, it's a fitness issue.

The umpires seemed to be equally reluctant to allow a runner. Smith's fitness issue may have well have been caused by the pies he ate during the innings interval.

As for asking for De Villiers to run for him - that's like replacing a shirehorse with a greyhound.

Hold em - very good point!

Strauss was right. Smith may have been in pain but sometimes in professional sport you have to push through the pain barrier. It wasn't like he was actually physically unable to run, he was just struggling a bit. Its true that Smith definitely won't do England any favours now but I doubt he would have anyway.
Besides which, it didn't affect the result. Great performance by the boys, to be honest I'm absolutely staggered at this turnaround in form.

Its a borderline issue. Personally I'd have liked Strauss to allow the runner. Whether other captains would allow it or not is irrelevant - I think it would be a gesture appropriate to the sport.

Having said that, I agree that having a runner for cramp is a different kettle of fish to having one for an actual injury and in that regard Strauss was well within his rights. I certainly won't join in the bandwagon of criticism of him and I also don't think it makes him a bad sport. As far as I'm aware, Strauss has never requested a runner himself for this problem.

Lets also not let it detract too much from what was an excellent performance. By the same token, lets not get carried away - just as you don't become rubbish overnight, you also don't become worldbeaters overnight. We'd do well to remember our ODI performances over the last month or so.

Strauss has surprised me. This was a truly stupid idea to deny Smith a runner. For two reasons:

Hypocrisy. Strauss/Vaughn are regularly taking "rules" to the limit. Eg bowling wide in Test matches to bore the batsmen out, excessive appealing, taking fielders off after several times a session. I say "rules" in inverted commas, because they are more like expectations of behaviour within the spirit of sport.

England are going to face a bit of revenge during the SAF tour later in the year. It'll be interesting to see when Strauss has to negotiate a runner if KP's Achilles goes (that will count as an old injury- so no runner)! As mentioned by Jolomo.

Lastly a word about Graeme Smith. This man deserves more credit - always dignified. Always, always having just been dumped out of another tournament that theyve been favourites does he have to explain whether he captains a team of chokers. Usually this is at the presentation ceremony (I remember Nas Hussain doing it after the 20/20 defeat by Pak - I would have blown my top!). SAF time will come.

Good to see Strauss being hard nosed about the runner request. Can't see Smith allowing it if Strauss had asked...
An excellent performance by England. I actually enjoyed watching it, as opposed to the excrutiating home series Vs Australia. Bopara still needs to be dropped though.

To allow a player who is exhausted after spending 90+ overs running around the field to have a runner, therefore allowing the player to rest between shots, and also introduce a fresh runner, is a huge advantage to the player. Did you all not see how well Jess Ryder batted, with a groin strain, once he had a runner?
Strauss was absolutely correct.

For a team not making excuses for going out of the tournament, the South Africans had a lot of them. Why are we again forced to focus on an irrelevance when the story is England performed so well that they merited victory whether Smith had a runner or not.

Well done England, enjoy this. South Africa will come back at us during the tour later in the winter and I'm sure that were one of the England players to get cramp, there will be no offer for that from the Proteas. Then Strauss will live or die by his decision as he said there is never a need for a runner for cramp. England will just have to keep preparing for each match as they did yesterday and they might just have an excellent winter.

All this hoo-har about Strauss and the runner. It's not his call. It's down to the umpires. Complain about them, it was their decision not to allow the runner.

To start with... Cramp is not an injury and is down to poor conditioning. If you prepare correctly you will not get cramp regardless of how susceptible you are to cramp. Secondly the talk in regards to the decision to recall Matthews firstly is nothing to do with this situation and secondly Strauss was correct to make the decision. Matthews was blocked and after seeing the footage of the event he realised this and recalled him.

I back Strauss on this one. Cramp is to do with conditioning and fitness. It's not an injury. You can't have a runner if you're a bit tired, why have one for cramp?

I guess it's the modern media but it's the nature of cricket that results are volatile and some react to that. England like all sides will be effective when they get early wickets ala Sri Lanka and 200+ from the top 4 to set up for the hitters ala South Africa. I do not see England have changed anything or anyone has made a permanent shift in form or style.

England I hope win the ICC CT but it will not make them a good side. Seriously at 33 and 30 have Collie and Shah discovered some great secret that means they will not be 30 averagers over the piece? No of course not.

Morgan is an addition. However the rest of the hitters were disppointing. It would be nice to think Flintoff, KP and Prior added to this team but all have played before and it has not made England consistently world beating.

RE the runner issue. Why are notable but still trivial footnote issues allowed to run and run like noses? It is sad and shows like the Burger nonsense in the Lions petty people not fans of the sport just the badge and flag which is inherently sad. It's a umpiring decision covered by the laws of cricket and hence really should not be discussed at length by winners or losers.

I don't think the argument you use "cramp debilitates a player's ability to run and is not an injury a player comes into a match with" is valid. Getting tired debilitates a player's ability to run, but I don't think anyone would have allowed the likes of Inzy to have a runner if he'd had a bit of a long day.

The fact is Smith did a lot of sprinting (he was out with the score on 274, with SA having hit 120 of those in boundaries, and 6 coming from wides and no balls, leaves 148 sprints between the stumps) in cold, night-time conditions, having already spent the afternoon running around in the field. I think you could justifiably say he was tired and that is why he cramped up.

Incidentally I also remember Strauss being forced to retire hurt with cramp a year or two back in India.

Fortunately in this instance I don't think Strauss's decision affected the outcome of the game. SA required around 12 runs an over when Smith asked for a runner, and the two dismissals the following over (which sealed the game for England) had nothing to do with his inability to run quickly. However, given the popularity of day/night cricket and the forthcoming day/night test matches which will no doubt be even more likely to induce cramp, the game's authorities need to come up with a consistent way to deal with the issue.

Why can't we just focus on the fact that Strauss has captained England to two brilliant victories against two of the favourites in this tournament. What does it matter if he let Smith have a runner or not? Why must a pretty insignificant part of the match be focused on and torn apart? Just celebrate the victory and focus on England's fantastic batting and Anderson's bowling. After being hammered 6-1 by Australia we finally have a match to be proud of.

Also, isn't this the 5th or 6th time in a row that we have beaten South Africa in a one day match? Pretty impressive

Pity that Strauss did not allow the runner for Smith in my opinion. Detracted slightly from a match that should be remembered partly for a heroic performance by Smith, but most for the outstanding team performance by England, especially Shah, Collingwood, Morgan, Anderson.

Interesting to hear Strauss's harsh comments on cramp though. To what extent has his position been formed by frustration with Shah's cramping up on previous occasions?

Strauss allowed the Aussies to change their side to include Graham Manou at Edgbaston when he was within his rights to say no, and he also - very generously - recalled a Sri Lankan batsman who had been run out after colliding with Graham Onions the other day. Smith was pushing his luck, perhaps thinking Strauss might have become a soft touch, but this time Strauss quite rightly put his foot down.

I'll tell you one thing, Smith wouldn't have even tried it on with someone like Nasser Hussain.

Saying that, Smith's was one of the best one-day innings you'll ever see. It's ridiculous he wasn't given the man of the match award.

Strauss was well within his rights to deny a runner, but it was not only poor sportmanship but 'un-Strauss like'. He may play to regret the decision.

Cramps may be due to poor conditioning, or to a magnificent innings at the crease. Lets be clear, most injuries are also due to poor conditioning and preparation.

None of this should detract from a convincing and well earned win by England. Well done.

strauss should have allowed a runner but insisted that it be Jacques Kallis, i doubt Smith would have been so keen then. On a more positive note, well played Eoin Morgan, surely one of the best finishing innings by an England player in recent ODI history

As has been said before, the rules state that a batsman doesn't have to be given a runner if they are suffering from cramp. Therefore, Strauss was entirely justified in refusing to allow Graeme Smith a runner. Equally, an opposing team captain would be entirely justified in refusing an England player a runner if they were suffering from cramp. Perhaps it would have been more "sporting" to allow Smith a runner, but I don't see why Strauss should be criticised for refusing Smith something that the rules state wasn't an entitlement. Criticise the rule itself if you wish, but don't criticise Strauss for using it.

I have to say it's reflective of bad losers to reduce discussion to 1 decision in a game. Especially a decision that was not that controversial. It was not like an LBW with the ball pitching 6 inches outside leg. Frankly it was a fair amount of gall to ask for a runner and the umpires were correct in their decision - incontrovertibly so?

Increasingly Sport does seem like WWE. Losers reach for obfuscation after losing. Never accept they were 2nd best nor discuss how they came to lose e.g. Chelsea why their side sat back and allowed Barcelona on to them with 10 men last year? Or the British Lions how they blew a 13 point lead?

Why do teams/people prefer to be victims? That surely is the saddest position of all?

Is it child like spite on the winners? To rain on their parade? Weak?

In all professional sports physical condition is just much importance as mentality and skill

As already mentioned by some other people, when Smith called for a runner the run-rate was pretty much an improbable task.
Let's celebrate England's win and hope that the good form can continue to the latter stages of the tournament.

Strauss is under no obligation to be Mr. Nice Guy to everybody. If he thinks people are trying to take advantage of his reputation as a good sport in order to benefit themselves at England's expense then he absolutely should shut the door on them and not think twice about it. De Villiers running for Smith? Pull the other one, lads.

It's all irrelevant anyway. Nobody can possibly accuse Strauss of not being a decent sport given his track record, and the real story of the day is England's tremendous performance to knock SA out on home soil.

Oliver Brett is completely and utterly right. This is something of a PR masterstoke from Strauss: he appears a protector of the spirit of cricket yet also remaining a hard-nosed captain. He got both decision right, taking into account both the cricket and media relations sides of captaincy.

Read the rules guys, the umpires make the decision about a runner. In my view it was fairly poor form for them to shift the decision onto to Strauss. They probably felt after the Mathews incident that he would say yes and all controversy would be avoided.

Therewesaidit

I am not sure which reports you have been reading. Smith as far as I could see blamed the defeat on the inability of his side to build partnerships, as compared with England who based their total on a substantial partnership.

We won and won well, but for me the victory would have been sweeter had Smith been given the runner.

It isn't just the letter of the law but also the spirit of the game that counts. And with the spirit, of course, comes the extra pride. You have defeated your opponent having given him every chance.

I think with Smith's record against England (I mean grassing up Vaughan in 2004/5 and sledging rather than his impressive batting average) neither of these sides are ever going to be particularly keen to do the other a favour.

Pietersen shouldn't, and never would have been, allowed a runner if his achilles injury recurs in the test series. Similarly, cramp is not an injury, but a loss of condition. It is Smith's responsibility to hydrate himself. I remember Strauss going off with cramp against India a few years ago and I don't think he even asked for a runner.

As many have said, cramp is not considered to be an injury. A captain has the right to refuse a runner if requested.

During the Scotland-Australia ODI match this summer, the Beeb screened a one-day game between England and Australia from 1989. During the match, Ian Healy developed an injury and was allowed a runner. Out came Dean Jones! Eventually Jones was sent back to the pavilion after Healy forgot about his runner and completed a run or two. The umpires felt that Healy had shown that his injury wasn'tthat debilitating and off Jones went.



Strauss did the right thing. Runners have come on far too easily in the past. The infamous 'rest breaks' for quick bowlers to go and change shirts and cool down have been removed from the game to a large degree. If runners are allowed for cramps, then a quick bowler would have just as strong a case to make for a fielding replacement to assist him after a lengthy spell. If a batsman can get a runner because of dehydration, then why should a bowler not claim to be dehydrated after an 8 over spell and therefore get to go off for 15 minutes?

I shall finish by saying that, as much as I love seeing England beat Australia, seeing Graeme Smith get wound up is even better!

There's actually a similarity between South Africa now and England after 2005. England didn't kick on when they beat Australia in 2005. Since South Africa beat Australia in Australia, they lost the return series in South Africa and played pretty poorly. They failed in the World T20 when looking very powerful and have been knocked out early here. They are a very good side but for me they are a workmanlike side, very tough opponents but they don't have someone like a Flintoff or Warne, someone with that ability to make something happen. With the ball they looked very one-dimensional and even the fielding, so long one of their strongest areas, looked a little flat yesterday.

The Test series over the winter is going to be a cracker.

I think everyone is missing the point here, the whole runner issue isn't that important lets just concentrate on the fact that england (who just lost 6-1 to australia) just beat the number 1 ODI side in the world in emphatic style. however, england only really win when people are doubting them so i'm not quite sure how they will fare in the semis

Well done Straus. Your team mates were putting their bodies on the line throwing themselves around the field. Your response to a tired Smith totally backed them, as any good captain should.

Someone with cramp is incapacitated, but not injured, I'd say. Cramp seems to me to be a wholly forseeable incident of batting energetically and scoring a large total, just like getting tired, and therefore doesn't really justify a runner in normal circumstances. If you are prepared to take the runs, you should be prepared to take the cramp. But if England players do need runners in the subcontinent, then those are abnormal circumstances.

This was a terrific performance and I was particularly pleased to see Colly get back into some form. He's a great accumulator and all one-day sides need someone like him. It enables the bashers to get on with it at the other end. Likewise, James Anderson coming good when it matters. His accuracy and speed are vital to England's chances. I don't think the issue of the runner is too important. Personally, I'd have agreed because there's nothing to lose by it, and it's good to have the opposition in your debt. But Strauss has never been the greatest strategic or tactical thinker. Contrary to some respondents, I am sure cramp should be counted an injury on trust. After all, it's just as easy to simulate a bad back or a turned ankle.

The issue here is the difference between SPORTSMANSHIP and RULES. Gilcrist and Sangakara walk when they know they are out. Basically most Australians will not leave their crease till the umpire lifts his finger. Both are their own personal choices and right in their own way.. When a person is out for LBW and shows his bat for all to see is bad sportsmanship and he is correctly fined by the Referee. Refusal of a runner when a person actually "suffers" in this innings ( whether injury or Cramps or hit badly with a "toe crusher ball"( sent down by Waqar Younus, say) should be only judged by the umpires with the fielding captain making a FINAL decision. If Smith or Strauss appeal to the umpire for "handling the ball" when a batsman is just picking the ball to return to the umpire it will be interesting to see the reaction for ALL. THIS they will say is bad Sportsmanship. WHY !

Why are we discussing something which isn't a major talking point? Cramp isn't an injury, Strauss was well in his rights to refuse. Nuff said. Don't have to repeat what people have said about Colly, Shah and Morgan, but Smith really caught my eye. He kept his wicket till the end, batting masterfully. I'm not used to see Smith batting aggresively, but he really cut loose this time round. A captain's innings indeed. But England have really suprised me in this tourno!

Sorry Smith, but there's 21 other players in the game and they've all had the same amount of time out on the field as you have and got along ok.

I think you need to have a look at your fitness if it's a problem for ya.

Last time I checked the law on runners (4 days ago), the fielding captain has no right to refuse a runner, or in fact any say in it. It is the responsibility of the umpires to refuse or allow a runner; Strauss couldn't have refused a runner if the umpires had allowed one, and although he could allow one by concession against the judgment of the umpires, what then is the point of the umpires?

It's not village cricket where people have given up their Saturday to play a game for fun, it's international cricket where people have a job to do. Whether that is to be in a fit enough condition to play the game for 100 overs (surely not too much to expect from an international cricketer!) or to make the decisions that give his team the best chance of winning within the spirit of playing the game at the highest competitive level, so be it.

Strauss was entirely right. Lets be honest - South Africa are not the fittest side in the world - Smith, Kallis and Boucher are all overweight. Cramp is a fitness issue and as Ian Healy (I think) told Ranutunga in one game - "you can't have a runner just because you are fat".

'Un-Strauss-like'? Un-English, I'd call it. We've always been a country and culture associated with sportsmanship, generosity and fair play. If we have to abandon that ethos merely in order to be 'competetive', then maybe it's time to stop playing the game.

Regarding England's defeat by New Zealand: so, the batsmen having put in their annual good performance, normal service has been resumed, has it?

Wow, shiverschanders, good sportsmanship and pessimism in one post - maybe you should have spoken about excessive drinking in town centres to finish your post on very English stereotypes!

Why is being a good sport consider so English? The bodyline series is the evidence that the English do not have an unblemished reputation for upholding the spirit of the game going all the way back to the 1930s. It didn't break any laws of the game but it nearly caused a diplomatic incident with Australia.

It's also funny that it has been revealed now that Smith will miss the T20 champions league with a leg injury he has been playing with since before the champions trophy.



I wonder if that is the same leg and has anything to do with his cramp?

Anybody remember what Ian Healy said to Arjuna Ranatunga when he asked for a runner? I'd say that applies here.

This England team has impressed many. The cricketers have shown hunger for positive results. With their collective strength the boys make up for what they may find in short supply on a given day. They played as a compact unit in the Ashes Series and they are playing marvellous cricket now in the CT.

In Prior England as a dedicated, efficient and reliable performer behind the stumps whose speedy recovery will do a world of good to the English cause.

The four semifinalists have demonstrated their desire to prolong their stay in South Africa. Best wishes in the semis.



Dr. Cajetan Coelho

A runner for cramp? just a way of getting a faster runner

As mentioned in numerous comments cramp is not an injury and it's interesting to note that Graeme Smith is now going to rest a leg injury !!! before the England Series