I want to know your opinions on the 5th Ashes Test

[cricket_icon]

There are going to be a hell of a lot of talking points coming out of this test and I think they deserve their own thread. First off, what did you all make of Aleem Dar's umpiring decision? Yes it followed the letter of the law but like Nasser said, there is also the law of common sense. There were 4 overs and 21 runs left. That's max, 30 mins of play, considering the way Clarke was getting his bowlers and fielders to behave. In my opinion, the umpires should have been stricter with Clarke and his team, warning him if they had to, to pick up the over rates.

The second major point is Clarke's behaviour throughout the second England innings. I'm not just talking about the way he wasted time and purposefully slowed the game down to a snail's pace but also how he behaved with the umpires, especially in the closing moments. He literally was peering over the umpires' shoulders to have a look at the light readings and as the two umpires tried to talk it through he butted in and as dar told him to go away, which he is totally entitled to do, Clarke seemed rather aggressive. It was quite clear from the pictures shown on Skysports, that he was saying something along the lines of "don't touch me" as Dar placed a hand on his shoulder. This was just a terrible display for a man considered to be a world class player and captain. Australia really made themselves look bad this series, through constant moaning and embarrassing comments by the likes of Warne and Lehman and now the one man for whom some people had a modicum of respect, Clarke. It's almost as embarrassing as Ponting's behaviour from a couple years ago.

So I'm adding in a poll on whether or not you thought it was right that play was ended due to bad light.

 

[Aislabie]

Wrong decision for cricket, right decision according to the regulations. It's the regulations that need changing not Aleem Dar.

He did his best by leaving his light meter behind.

 

[cricket_icon]

Wrong decision for cricket, right decision according to the regulations. It's the regulations that need changing not Aleem Dar.

He did his best by leaving his light meter behind.

How did the light meter come back onto the field? Did Aleem ask for it or did the match referee send it?

the common sense thing here would have been to not look/use the meter at all, because once you have and the reading is equal to or surpasses other readings at other stages in the game where the players went off, he has no other choice but to take the players off. If I was Aleem Dar, and I know I'm nowhere near as skilled an umpire as he is, take nothing away from him but a modicum of common sense would have helped.

Clarke "check the light meter"
Dar "I don't have it"

LOL seriously, only in cricket, when the flood lights are on, is it too dark to play a game...a game that will probably only last 30 mins more.

 

[sifter132]

I couldn't watch it all live...but I have it on tape and I'll get into it ASAP. Disappointing to hear that Clarke might have let the situation get to him. That's one thing Australia could have taken from this series: knowing that they were the team playing to win for the majority of the series, but if he's fallen into the slow over rate, time wasting trap that England have done when they've been on the back foot...I'm saddened

 

[barmyarmy]

Moving to the Ashes forum.

Rules are rules but the ICC don't half make the game look stupid at times.

 

[MUFC1987]

It was the right decision. It was too dark. When fielders legitimately can't see the ball, then it's too dark. The only regulation to blame is that we should have started earlier in the day, rather than adding time on at the end. The only thing to blame apart from that is probably Over-rates, which are becoming atrocious from both sides these days.

 

[barmyarmy]

You have to wonder though when the game is being played under floodlights at a venue that regularly holds day/night matches. I know the argument is that the white ball can be seen and the red ball can't but what an utterly ridiculous way to finish a match when you have a full house in.

 

[cricket_icon]

You have to wonder though when the game is being played under floodlights at a venue that regularly holds day/night matches. I know the argument is that the white ball can be seen and the red ball can't but what an utterly ridiculous way to finish a match when you have a full house in.

couldn't agree more, I could understand if there were 10 overs left and 70 runs to get, then ok, but there were only 4 overs and 21 runs. The light wasn't any worse than it had been 10 minutes earlier. I had flashbacks to WC final 07 lol

 

[whiteninness]

Ambiguous question.

Was it right by the rules? Yes, there is no opinion on this. Nasser is incorrect. There is no law of common sense.

Are the rules right in terms of promoting cricket and incorporating common sense? No, but that's not the fault of Michael Clarke or the umpires.

----------

couldn't agree more, I could understand if there were 10 overs left and 70 runs to get, then ok, but there were only 4 overs and 21 runs. The light wasn't any worse than it had been 10 minutes earlier. I had flashbacks to WC final 07 lol

They went off when the light metre was at 9.7. They had earlier gone off at 8.1 and hence should have gone off at 8.1 yesterday as well.

From this, they probably should have gone off when there were about 10 overs left

 

[MUFC1987]

All this ruining the spectacle is some strange stuff though. If England had been 9 down and then they'd have gone off, nobody in the crowd would have cared and they'd have been partying like it was 1999. Some people seem to think that just because England were close to winning, the rules should be dismissed, when they shouldn't. It's not a fair game when one team can't see the ball as soon as it goes into the outfield.

 

[cricket_icon]

All this ruining the spectacle is some strange stuff though. If England had been 9 down and then they'd have gone off, nobody in the crowd would have cared and they'd have been partying like it was 1999. Some people seem to think that just because England were close to winning, the rules should be dismissed, when they shouldn't. It's not a fair game when one team can't see the ball as soon as it goes into the outfield.

If England were 9 down and it was the two batsmen on the field begging to run off and cuddle together in the Pavilion, being an England supporter, I still wouldn't have agreed with the decision to end play with 4 overs left. Losing wickets or getting runs, there was every chance of a result last night.

I'm going to move away from Clarke's shameful behaviour last night and focus on this ideal in cricket, that you can't play when there isn't enough light. I can understand this being relevant throughout most of the 20th century, but in the modern game, with modern stadium lighting, bad light is, quite frankly, quite stupid.

Yes ok, the ball is red, it may be difficult to see when a guy is bowling at 80+mph, I totally understand that, then why not change the colour of the ball? The pink ball was spoken about, it's been developed, it's been trialed, why is not being used? Is the establishment saying it's just not cricket? The same establishment that said players should never wear coloured clothing or use a white ball? Cricket as a sport becomes a laughing stock for these very reasons, it's why the sport is so inaccessible to so many youths around the world, all this huffing and puffing over the colour of a ball, over light and light drizzle, it gets ridiculous at times.

The so called establishment, men in horrible suits, 60 years old and sons of past administrators (the entire administration of the sport, especially in England is like a dictatorship or some sort of royal family) have lost sight of what makes sport engaging and fun. They care more for traditions which should have died half a century ago than most fans and players.

It has taken so long for tech to be used in the game and it still isn't fully established everywhere on the planet. It's just plain stupid, the sport must do away with trying to shove 100 year old rules and regulations down our throats. The sport must modernise and with all the steps being taken forward by t20 cricket to attract a new audience, it is test cricket which will then try and keep a hold of that audience...but what happens when a kid trying to understand the game, originally hooked by t20, tunes in on a test match which ended like the one last night? He tunes right off lol

The 5th test wasn't an isolated incident, it is very much a culmination of cricket's inabilities to advance with the times, to try and diversify. Even as technology has advanced, the methods, rules and regulations of the sport lag behind. When there are huge and well functioning lights beaming into the oval, lighting the ground for miles around, why is it necessary for players to go off for bad light? Especially if the batsmen are seeing the ball well enough to strike consistent boundaries? History could and should have been made last night and it wasn't, not because one team was better than the other but because cricket was still stuck in the 19th century.

 

[barmyarmy]

I'm not sure I agree with you about living under a dictatorship but Giles Clarke definitely needs a new tailor.

 

[MUFC1987]

Flood lights being on does not mean that the conditions are perfect for picking up a red ball against a predominately white (players clothing and sight screens) background. That's part of the reason why a white ball is used for limited overs cricket. The reason the pink ball isn't used is because it's not good enough to be used. Yes, it's a compromise being looked at, but it's not there yet, hence why we haven't seen a day/night test yet. People can complain about the bad light all they want, but it's not just if it's dangerous, it's if it's not fair. And fielders literally not being able to pick up the ball is not fair. Hence, it can't go on, as horrible as that may be for little Timmy turning the tv on and wanting to see a bigger celebration.

As I've said, the issue is not starting earlier when time is lost and over rates. Solve those problems and we won't have to play at 7:30pm at night.

 

[cricket_icon]

Flood lights being on does not mean that the conditions are perfect for picking up a red ball against a predominately white (players clothing and sight screens) background. That's part of the reason why a white ball is used for limited overs cricket. The reason the pink ball isn't used is because it's not good enough to be used. Yes, it's a compromise being looked at, but it's not there yet, hence why we haven't seen a day/night test yet. People can complain about the bad light all they want, but it's not just if it's dangerous, it's if it's not fair. And fielders literally not being able to pick up the ball is not fair. Hence, it can't go on, as horrible as that may be for little Timmy turning the tv on and wanting to see a bigger celebration.

As I've said, the issue is not starting earlier when time is lost and over rates. Solve those problems and we won't have to play at 7:30pm at night.

The Aussie fielders could see the ball, there were some great stops in that last innings. And yes i do agree, the umpires should have been strict with both Cook and Clarke for slow over rates and time wasting tactics throughout the series. Having said all that...4 overs, 21 runs lol it's ridiculous. Only cricket, for better or for worse.

----------

I'm not sure I agree with you about living under a dictatorship but Giles Clarke definitely needs a new tailor.

Yeah, Giles is the same guy who made dodgy business deals with that American businessman but gave Muhammad Amir a "I'm your dad and I'm disappointed in you" look when he was accused of spot fixing. Ahh the hypocrisy stinks lol

 

[MUFC1987]

I can't remember the exact details, but I think it was Siddle who didn't move a couple of times when the ball was hit near him. So he definitely couldn't see it, that's what I referred too.