Poor form from AJ Tye but to be expected from a Aussie. Dan Hughes finished the 17th over batting away three dots so his partner James Vince could win the game by reaching his hundred. But then that's purposely bowled to lose the match on the first ball of the 18th so he's stuck on 98 not out which stops him becoming only the third guy of the tournament to hit a century (Hales one of the other two).
Not sure if I understand the point of this. Why does it matter how you lose? I could almost understand it if one of the Perth Scorchers team was one of the two centurions this season (even then...!) but that’s not the case.
It’s just petty and pathetic. If Vince is on 98* he’s obviously played a cracking innings, why you would deny him a hundred in that way us beyond me.
I'm all for sportsmanship but I don't see how that necessarily translates to allowing an opposition player to score runs even if it does get them to their century?
Nobody is saying they should have just let him easily get his runs for the hundred, but to deny him the chance by bowling a wide on purpose is pathetic. Bowl a proper ball, then if Vince can’t get his hundred, fine, but at least he’s given the chance.
It was poor really poor ,simply because if you are a bowler you should want to take a wicket with every bowl you bowl & what a scalp if you knock someone over who is seeing it like a football , but he showed no professionalism or personal pride in bowling that wide , a disgrace .
Nah, it was disrespectful to the fielding team to see out dot balls for the sake of your mate. Like letting a goalkeeper take a penalty. Pub league antics.
The rematch of James Vince vs AJ Tye and Vince got a brilliant 95. Scorchers need 189 to win the final at the break. The last over of the Sixers innings had three bad umpiring decisions. It's going to be a good chase when it starts.
Yes, but who cares? It has no bearing on the result. A deliberate no ball is just a petulant act - why stop Vince getting a century?
