Talk:Hansie Cronje

Question

"A devout Christian, it came as a great shock to the cricketing community of South Africa when, in April 2000, he confessed to being involved with the largest match fixing scandal in the game of cricket..." This puts forward an idealised notion of Christian behavior and, as such, is POV. I'd remove the first three words. What do others think? Yankoz

Conspiracy

Wasn't it very convenient (for the bookkeepers) that he died in such a particular way?? Any clarifications as to how he missed the flight in the first place?

Forfeiture

Cronje is not the only captain to forfeit an innings. In that very Test match, England's Nasser Hussain also forfeited England's first innings while Cronje forfeited SA's second. The captains mutually agreed to do so to revive interest in that Test match after rain interrupted play after SA's first innings and relented only on the final day. England went on to win the match in the dying overs, thanks mainly to their present captain Michael Vaughan, who made his debut on that tour to SA.

Not true. In those days the laws did not permit a captain to forfeit his first innings. Therefore Nasser Hussain declared the England innings at 0 for 0 off 0.0 overs. Cronje then became the first and only captain to date to forfeit a Test innings. The laws have since changed so that a captain may forfeit the first innings. Kind regards, jguk 12:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The gifts Cronje received from the Bookkeepers weren't for match-fixing. Those were only 'gifts' to make him soft. The one match-fixing incident was supposed to be during a 'fund raising friendly' in India, which the team never went through with, and never got paid. They lost the match in the end, but all the players who were supposed to be involved made good scores in that match. Only afterwards did the Indian cricket board request the game to be declared as an official international game. My point? Hansie Cronje was 'banished' for receiving gifts from bookkeepers, but not for match-fixing. The judge (as stupid as he was) tried to pin that 'forfeit from both captains' incident as a match-fixing incident. The poor stupid judge said: 'If you didn't declare, England would have had to reach the final score before the end of the last day otherwise South Africa would have won.' -Johan

He wasn't convicted for forfeiting an innings. He was convicted for what he did during the ODI series in India, which involved Gibbs not scoring more than 20 runs and Crookes opening the bowling, among other things, and taking payments for this information [1].

I've reverted the last edits by Johan, but also removed the last paragraph of the previous version, which went:

Cronje's native South Africa had at least partly forgiven him for his crimes, but the rest of the cricketing world most surely had not, particularly in South Asia where Cronje's corruption was a useful counterexample to the whispered belief in "white" cricket-playing nations that the corruption infecting the game was mainly a subcontinental issue. Before his death, it was occasionally whispered that Cronje and the South African cricketing hierarchy wished to see him return to the game in some form. Threats of boycotts of the South African team quickly ensued.

I would like to see some verification for this, because the "occasionally whispered" and "whispered belief" smells of unverifiable stuff. Sam Vimes 18:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Drawn ODI

He captained the One Day International team to 99 wins out of 138 one day internationals with one match drawn. This sentence doesn't make sense as draws are not possible in one day matches. Is the one match drawn maybe referring to a tie? GK1 09:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)