Do we really need to play dead rubbers?

[blake]

Isn't it the Houston Rockets?.. :what

 

[pcfan123]

Houston Rockets - basketball

Houston Texans - football

Houston Astros - baseball

sorry for being off topic, but I was born and raised in Houston, had to clear the air

 

[SciD]

Rockets seem to make playoffs every now and then. I know it keeps Sohum excited.

 

[jordox]

but I was born and raised in Houston, had to clear the air

Oh, it just gets worse and worse.

Why do you go for England then?

 

[blake]

Oh, sorry Hmarka - I had simply assumed we were talking about basketball. Thanks for clearing that up anyway.

 

[pcfan123]

Oh, it just gets worse and worse.

Why do you go for England then?

British Parents, spend all my summers as a child in England with my grandma

Also, its not much fun rooting for the American Cricket team

Once again sorry for being off topic.

 

[sohum]

American sports have plenty of dead rubbers in regular season. Some teams play as many as 10-15 games after being eliminated.

They aren't dead rubbers, in all cases though. As Hmarka said, the opposition still has an opportunity of qualifying, hence the match does have some meaning. Also, regular season standings have a bearing on draft order, hence there is generally not a case where there is nothing to gain.

They have never come close to making it to the playoffs but the teams that they play towards the end of the season are still in contention so the games are important for them .

Hey you guys got Thor now! Just make sure you get him a contract--the guy's a beast.

 

[irottev]

Yes we need them. For many reasons. However, the ICC should allow sides to totally change their squad if they wish for dead rubber games.

 

[sohum]

Yes we need them. For many reasons. However, the ICC should allow sides to totally change their squad if they wish for dead rubber games.

Wouldn't be feasible for the teams themselves to fly-in 11 extra players for a couple of dead rubber games.

 

[Kev]

I don't see Cricket ever scrapping Dead Rubber matches, but they could help themselves by scheduling series so there isn't the possibility of some many dead rubber matches.

Get rid of 7 game ODI's, if you want to play that many matches, make it a tri series or something. If not, 5 is surely enough.

And for heavens sake get rid of these 3 game finals that pop up every now and then.

 

[aussie1st]

Yes we need them. For many reasons. However, the ICC should allow sides to totally change their squad if they wish for dead rubber games.

Isn't the World Cup/Major tournaments the only events the ICC care about in terms of what you do with your squad? If a team desperately wanted to fly out a whole bunch of replacements for a series they could do it.

 

[smssia0112]

Certainly in a home series a team can select whoever it wants for any match, and when on tour it depends on how many players the team chooses to fly over. There's no restrictions I'm pretty sure.

 

[sohum]

I think there is an MoU signed by representatives of both teams before bilateral tournaments. You'll see almost no issue with replacing an injured player but if you try and replace a player from the squad because of form, you're likely to get opposition from the other team.

 

[Howsie]

In cricket, yes we do.

 

[Owzat]

Americans have terribly short attention spans. If there is nothing on the line , they wont watch. Thats why soccer is not big here, Americans just do not like the concept of a draw. They want a winner and a loser.

Maybe the wrong question is being asked, if their are so many dead rubbers in cricket etc then why such a mismatch and how can that be addressed. I think series lengths for Tests should be standardised, probably three match series if there is no change to the number of teams in Tests or the structure ie two tier alternative.

Can you imagine many yanks watching five days of a Test let alone a series - dead rubber or otherwise? Leave them alone to their sports, if they are happy to schedule up to seven games when only four may take place then let them do so. In this country, and others, that would be seen as wasted ticket-selling opportunity. Imagine the outrage if the Oval Test was cancelled because England or their opponents had already won the series. And just because a series is over, doesn't mean the match won't be hard fought and didn't England win the consolation against South Africa in a dead rubber? What would s*y do if they had a whole five days' cricket lined up and had to fill that slot?!?