sachin
International Coach
But it helped.No denying that.
How do you English fans feel about the substitute fielders?
- Thread starter valvolux
- Start date
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
Law 2.1 (b)tassietiger said:
The umpires shall have discretion, for other wholly acceptable reasons, to allow a substitute for a fielder..........at any subsequent time.
sachin
International Coach
But the umpires are useless.We had plenty of examples,over the series.
sachin said:
2 dismissals were made by Subs Hildreth took a catch ( a dolly so i think Bell would've taken it had he been there which he probably would have), and when pratt ran out Ponting, Pratt was on for the injured Jones, Totally legitimate.
I agree, jones is a good fielder - he was off for a good reason (he didn't return again in the series) - the players who went off the most were the other 3 pace bowlers, and of course trescothic. The reason Ponting went right off was because Fletcher was fully aware that his plan of using substitute specialist fielders had paid off - and chose to leave the players rooms and stand out on the players balcony with a cheeky grin as ponting came up the players race - which was more unsportingly than the Ponting outburst that followd - I think he said something along the lines of - "Get back in the f#cking change rooms you pr#ck!"
But think back to the one-dayers - how could it possibly happen so much in a one day match? Extremely weak bladders?
The umpires had ample opportunity to stop it - but didn't. That's the strange part. And I guess England will keep doing it if they can get away with it - but you have to agree that they shouldn't get away with it any longer....beacuse if your fast bowlers can have a rest and rub down when ever they want, they can obviously go as hard as they want whenever they want.
But think back to the one-dayers - how could it possibly happen so much in a one day match? Extremely weak bladders?
The umpires had ample opportunity to stop it - but didn't. That's the strange part. And I guess England will keep doing it if they can get away with it - but you have to agree that they shouldn't get away with it any longer....beacuse if your fast bowlers can have a rest and rub down when ever they want, they can obviously go as hard as they want whenever they want.
No one actually knows they have a rest and a rub down, it tended to happen before a bowling spell so maybe they just went to change into their bowling boots and get a bit of advice from Cooley.
And Fletcher wouldn't have said that because it would've been all over the papers.
And why not use a specialist fielder for 12th man? Nothing against the laws, and Pratt was on for the INJURED Jones.
And Fletcher wouldn't have said that because it would've been all over the papers.
And why not use a specialist fielder for 12th man? Nothing against the laws, and Pratt was on for the INJURED Jones.
sureshot - read a little more closely. it was ponting who said that - fletcher didn't say a thing - he simply went out onto the balcony to rub it in - and ponting kindly asked him to go back inside the dressing room and have a cup of tea.
accepted, jones was injured. but it was the 2 key big men who spent the most time off the ground, harmison and flintoff, 90% after they'd finished a spell.
it's easy to pretend as if nothing actually happened when your teams winning. no one in australia gave 2 hoots about the fact that the pakistanis had about a dozen really poor decisions when they last toured australia, a few at really crucial times - it's easy to ignore when you're winning. but that was poor umpiring, this is flaunting of the rules to get your team an unfair advantage.
as i've said - it's impossible to tell what they did off the field. but how could you be so naive? the frequency, the timing, and the players involved made it ridiculously obvious - even the english commentators (including beefy) admitted what was going on.
accepted, jones was injured. but it was the 2 key big men who spent the most time off the ground, harmison and flintoff, 90% after they'd finished a spell.
it's easy to pretend as if nothing actually happened when your teams winning. no one in australia gave 2 hoots about the fact that the pakistanis had about a dozen really poor decisions when they last toured australia, a few at really crucial times - it's easy to ignore when you're winning. but that was poor umpiring, this is flaunting of the rules to get your team an unfair advantage.
as i've said - it's impossible to tell what they did off the field. but how could you be so naive? the frequency, the timing, and the players involved made it ridiculously obvious - even the english commentators (including beefy) admitted what was going on.
Last edited:
But it didn't affect the cricket much. It's not as though it was the only difference between the teams, and if we did it why didn't Australia to make a point?
'Flaunting of the rules to get your team an unfair advantage?'
need to ask Shane Warne about that one.
'Flaunting of the rules to get your team an unfair advantage?'
need to ask Shane Warne about that one.
sachin
International Coach
Subbiung people on and off for no reason,is not in the spirrt of the gameSureshot said:
Filthy cheats! 
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
Which law are they breaking then?sachin said:Filthy cheats!
sachin
International Coach
Spirit laws
I don't think it affected the outcome of the series - england played great cricket and deserved the win, no question. But they didn't play everything in the spirit of the game, or the rules - they came into the series knowing they had to exploit anything and everything to gain an edge, which they did. How about not a single player asking Ponting if he was ok when he got smashed in the head by a Harmison beauty, drawing blood? That's pretty **** poor if you ask me. Seems a shame considering the aussies have tried to clean up their act after the Steve Waugh era, as it was obvious that not too many people in world cricket were liking the aussies - maybe they should resort to the ugly aussies of old.
Edit: oh, and shane warne - that's a really bad example. going off to have a rest after a long spell to give a far better fielder a go is a lot different to puffing on winny blues whilst begging an ugly south african dragon for a threesome via sms. the difference is, warne can still come in and take 40 wickets in a series, but its questionable as to whether the english bowlers could do the same without the extended rests.
Edit: oh, and shane warne - that's a really bad example. going off to have a rest after a long spell to give a far better fielder a go is a lot different to puffing on winny blues whilst begging an ugly south african dragon for a threesome via sms. the difference is, warne can still come in and take 40 wickets in a series, but its questionable as to whether the english bowlers could do the same without the extended rests.
Last edited:
sachin
International Coach
Do you see me defending Shane Warne?Sureshot said:
:valvolux said:
Ermm. Harmison went up to him because i can remember.
And if it was against the rules valvolux the Umpires would've taken action or the match official would have.
It made no difference to the outcome of the series.
