03.24.07
It’s just not cricket
So, can’t help wondering. If yer man was murdered and if there are all sorts of match fixing conspiracies going on, does that mean that there is a possibility that Ireland didn’t REALLY win but Pakistan threwthe match so that someone could make piles on a bet?
brian thomson said,
March 24, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I’ll be surprised if there’s a conspiracy. Pakistan lost to Ireland, in cricket-mad Pakistan (and India) that alone is a motive for murder. My guess is it’s a member of the hotel staff, who would be able to get past hotel security.
PS: “yer man”? I’ve lived in Ireland for over seven years now, but still don’t get “yer man”. He’s not MY man – none of them are! In this case we know who you’re referring to, but often I have to ask “who is yer man?”
Tim said,
March 24, 2007 at 11:46 pm
If you want to understand “yer man” read everything by Flann’O Brien. That would be a good start. Then theres “yer other man”………the cricket killing is a conspiracy he was going to blow the whistle on match fixing and he got done in, Ireland probably won fair and square, it was St.Patricks day and they had good luck. However if they find out that people are cashing in betting slips and winning mega bucks well then it’s rethink time.
ben said,
March 25, 2007 at 1:08 am
The internal illogic of this position, on the face of it, should be clear. Anyone who was trying to fix a match to earn a potload of money on an unexpected result would have been too busy celebrating to want to murder the man who delivered the goods. Of course, it’s possible, it’s possible that he was then murdered to shut him up, or that the Taliban did it, or Pervez Musharref ordered it (all real Internet theories, yes!). But I’m sure the GUBU-reading public had hoped that some lessons about rampant speculation might be better learnt and longer retained.
Andrew said,
March 25, 2007 at 9:58 am
If Woolmer had been murdered because Pakistan won the match, that would be more logical. Anyone attempting a coup would not have been backing a long odds-on shot to win and therefore would not have been enraged by Pakistan’s losing. These days, the big bookmaking firms and betting exchanges have sophisticated software that shows up any unusual betting patterns and any influx of money on Ireland to win would certainly have been deemed unusual.
I’ve been watching and playing cricket for forty years and watched every ball of the game in question; if Pakistan threw that match, they did it very ineptly – and, I would add, are actors of Oscar-winning standard.
It’s sad that Bob Woolmer is dead. It would be sad for the Irish players, victorious in what was probably one of the two or three greatest sporting upsets ever, if their victory is devalued by comments like the one I heard on newstalk this morning, stating with confidence that the ‘whole thing is fixed’ . You don’t have to know anything about cricket to have that kind of confidence – a bit of prejudice and a fondness for conspiracy theories will do.
Sarah said,
March 25, 2007 at 1:03 pm
yeah the motive would be stronger for killing because they lost or because he was about to turn whistleblower…STILL, perhaps Woolmer summoned the person he suspected of arranging the loss to his room and a fight took place..the killer/match fixer may not have intended killing him until Woolmer declared his intention to reveal his suspicions. I wonder if the Jamaican police force are up to the Miss Marple like investigation surely required. Of course, as Digicell were the major sponsors I am sure the Tribunal will have a new module to see if DOB can be implicated
My parents tell me, btw, that in these parts every parish had a cricket team until the 1950′s and it was hugely popular.
Oh, and if you think “yer man” is bad, you should hear my builder whose favourite reference is “as the fella says”. I’m always tempted to say, but WHICH fella is that? But I don’t. I enthusiastically agree with whatever outstanding example of common sense is being attributed to the fella in question.
Leon said,
March 25, 2007 at 1:50 pm
The odds weren’t that long 10-1.
Brendan said,
March 25, 2007 at 2:07 pm
The problem with betting in cricket isn’t that teams throw results, it’s that, because people, especially in Pakistan and India, like to bet on tiny things in matches; individual balls, scores, overs and the ‘spread’ i.e. the gap between the teams and individual batsmans’ innings. Some of them may have thrown their wickets or something or like that.
Imagine if, for instance, a bookie has a lot of money taken on batsman A to score a 50, or a hundred. He might then like for that batsman to get out at a certain point rather than play his innings honestly. Generally, in my opinion, punters bet on positive things happening.
Pakistan wouldn’t have been trying to get beaten, but may have been trying to have a few odd things happen, and then let it get away from them.
Maybe Bob Woolmer knew a thing or two about this?
I shudder to think what his last moments must have been like. May he rest in peace.
Brendan said,
March 25, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Also, Brian: for ‘yer man’, read ‘the guy’ or, if it pleases you, ‘the dude’!
Andrew said,
March 25, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Ger Siggins knows as much about this (the cricket,not the ‘yer man’ stuff) as anyone in Ireland and his explanations in the Sunday Tribune today – buy it as well as the Times – set out all the issues cogently.
Interestingly, the man at the centre of all this media storm is James Fitzgerald, an Irishman who worked in the Irish Times till lately and is now media officer of the International Cricket Conference. Busy old week for him I’d say.
Brendan said,
March 25, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Cheers Andrew, I buy the Tribune the odd timeand based on your recommendation I’ll be giving it a go again. Haven’t been too impressed with the IT I have to say.
P O'Neill said,
March 25, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Brendan is right. The money flows in South Asia are on spread bets e.g that a particular batter will be over/under a certain range. Look at the Pakistan batting totals. It’s a detective’s job to be suspicious and they’ll surely be looking at some of the extraordinarily low totals for individual batters. Note also that Ireland won the toss and made Pakistan bat first, which does make the any strategy of producing a few “unders” more risky since you don’t know at that point what you need to secure victory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/shared/fds/hi/statistics/cricket/scorecards/2007/3/13052/html/scorecard.stm
Mark Crowley said,
March 26, 2007 at 9:47 am
I don’t think it was a fixed match Sarah. The ex-captain of the Irish team, who is now a rugby referee, was on the radio recently and he watched the whole match on TV. He said the Pakistani players were distraught at losing, and seemed to be giving their all. I think we caught them on a bad day.
eoin said,
March 26, 2007 at 10:09 am
Well It only took three hundred years but finally something interesting has happened in cricket.
Brendan said,
March 26, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Andrew: To be honest, the Tribune, and I found the 3 page spread devilishly difficult to find as it wasn’t in the sports section or, as far as I could see, flagged on the front page.
Mark: The players could still be distraught at losing, even if they were influenced by gambling.
The point is they may have been trying to win, but with certain things happening during the match, and that this may have gone wrong; a bit like if Ireland tried to concede 12 scrums in their own ’22 against England or something.
P O'Neill said,
March 27, 2007 at 12:01 am
It’s now enough of a story that the Irish captain spoke out.