Anyone else think the Bangladesh/SA match was fixed?!?

Question

Yesterday's loss was very embarrassing for Saffas everywhere! It was a match that SA should have easily won, in fact the scores should have been reversed. After the match-fixing scandal involving Hansie Cronje and Hershelle Gibbs in 2000 and the fact that Gibbs is still in the team, I find it hard to believe it will never happen again!
I know some people on here will say just accept it they were outplayed but I can't helping thinking that it was fixed because: 1. Smith has continuously chosen to bowl first, hence, SA has been always had to chase runs, and 2. the lacklustre SA batting performance left them looking like they didn't care about winning!

Either the SA cricket has given up all hope of doing well in the world cup or they took the risk of fixing that match was in the hope that they can still get through to the semi-finals even with two loses! What do you think?

Damn you really are seriously immature - sorry but show me where I mention race in my question or what race has got to do with it? By the way you ignorant fool SA has more players of colour than they used to, we've got Makhaya Ntini who is black, Ashwell Prince (mixed race), Robin Peterson (mixed race), Hershelle Gibbs (mixed-race), and Charl Langeveldt (mixed-race). England is hardly leading the way in diversity with their cricket team who is 90% white apart from a handfull of asian players. By the way, SA is also a poor country.
In future get your facts straights before passing judgement or making wild assumptions!

nalakafairly - it's not a case of SA wanting to lose, it's about individuals making big money! What you don't seem to understand is that what Cronje did in 2000 will always remain as a source of distrust among SA cricket fans, especially as Gibbs was never thrown out of team. Furthermore, what with suspicions that the Pakistan/Ireland game was fixed and Bob Woolmer's murder, this world cup isn't free of corruption!
I accept that we lost but it's the way we lost, and the fact that the SA batsmen had no fight in them does make me wonder.
Please explain how Smithy (I assume Graeme Smith?) is a ego-maniac. I admit he's crap captain...

Stuart w - You know what? Make me! I've probably been in this country longer than you've been alive! But please show me where I slag off England in every Q&A...btw, you're exactly the type of English person I hate - extremely arrogant, going round thinking your country is the best, the English are no better than the Americans in this respect! Nah I don't hate the UK, I just hate pr!cks like you who slags us Saffas all the time, **** yaself!

Oh this is hilarious, another stunning defeat for the barmy army! Actually I'm not that bothered now that England just got stuffed like a Christmas turkey!

Lets hope Freddie doesn't fall off his pedalo this time! Nice one Australia you just made my day - that's what England get for wanting SA to lose so badly! Did they actually believe they had what it takes to beat the Aussies who've yet to make a mistake?! How arrogant is that?

Answer 1

It was no shock to me SA lost against Bangladesh. Although i totally agree that match fixing is still possible and more than likely happening after watching the SA game yesterday i must disagree that it was fixed.

1. Smith always chooses to bowl first because its well documented that South Africa are a chasing team and feel they give themselves a much better chance of winning if they do.
2. The SA batting performance may have appeared lacklustre but when you consider that only really Kallis and Smith have made any real impact with the bat in the world cup it is no real surprise that the other failed to rescuse the ship once those two were gone.

In my opinion the biggest problem South Africa has in this world cup which was highlighted in the Bangladesh game is there lack of understanding of carribean wickets and lack of any diversity in their bowling attack. Its no coincidence that the wicket tables at this world cup are dominated by spinners and bowlers who bowl variable pace. South Africa instead of investigating the wickets and realising they needed diversity in their attack relied once again on the aging pace bowlers who have seen them to victory in the past. Also it seems to me that their preparation would have benefited from batting practice on similar pitches with similar bowlers they are now facing. Warming up with tours by Sri Lanka and Pakistan on South African pitches was definitely not up to scratch.

I hope South Africa takes a gamble on giving Peterson the opportunity to see what he can do early in the innings in the next game as well as maybe Smith bowling more of his slow turners. I also believe their trump card who was sadly missed in the Bangladesh game and who without question needs to be in all the next games is Andrew Hall. If i was selecting i would drop Kemp who has done nothing in the tournament and keep Nel in with Hall as both players show the attitude and type of bowling needed on the wickets theyre playing on.

In conclusion i must be honest as an avid SA fan and say that i dont see them getting any better during this world cup and that will prove that there is no match fixing involved just terribly bad preparation and the only person in my opinion who should be asked to explain is Mickey Arthur.

Answer 2

The major betting in cricket actually has nothing to do with the result of the game. People bet on what the captain winning the toss will do, the opening bowler, batting order, number of wides in a specific over etc. It is very easy for a player to give this information or bowl a certain number of wides and it is almost impossible to detect. This translates into easy money with very few cricketers being caught.

Answer 3

No I cant see a fix here. Smith is a commited cricketer who I personally cannot see throwing a game . The Tigers batted well then used their spinners to good effect. Batsmen like Jacque Kallis would not throw a game , it was just one of those results.

Answer 4

Oh come on, give credit to the Bangladeshies, they palyed well. I dont think the game was fixed, i mean those guys took some serious wickets only professionals can get (apart from the run outs of course). They played well and all credits go Bangladesh.

Answer 5

I do not think that the match between South Africa and Bangladesh was fixed. It appears that South Africa under estimated Bangladesh and were more complacent while facing them as was done by India and paid the price. Bangladesh really outplayed South Africa in all departments
of the game and deservedly won.

Answer 6

It did seem like it was fixed , but not during the early part of SA innings. I only thought that its a fixed when I saw Fibbs not doing any effort to reduce that RR of 10 when they had 10 overs left. Agreed , he was injured , but to what extent ? I would rather die trying then live a mediocre life.

Answer 7

well south africa was representing thr country... n y wld any1 loose intentionally whn thr country's pride is at stake???? n tht too loosing to bangladeshi's.... well they r the weakest iny??? so y wld a top ranking country loose to some bottom ranking country??? just becaz they r sure tht they'll go to the semi-finals... n is this a money matter or some thin??? no i guess... so whts the point????

Answer 8

No the best team on the day won...get over it. And if you hate England that much (You seem to slag us off in most questions you answer) then why the f*uck dont you go home!!!

Answer 9

yes this SouthAfricans capable of doing it again.
They have bad track record.
And they would love to loose .
Are you kidding buddy
Accept the defeat like a gentleman.
Please Dont be like that ego maniac like Smithy

Answer 10

Yes, I strongly believe it was a fixed match. One can easily realize this phenomenon while watching SA’s performance.