***Official Australia in India***

[duffer]

Oooh, thought that was down his throat. Haddin letting loose a little now.

 

[IndGunner]

The field.

My bad then im not as learned as i ought to be on the topic i guess.

 

[Craig]

Haha Haddin must somehow read this thread.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No one is doubting the legitamacy. Pup11 wants to enforce field restrictions to not let it happen again

Yeah, well what I'm saying is that I don't think that would be reasonable. Australia got themselves into this situation, and by using these tactics India were risking taking a win off the table. That alone should justify the tactics.

And in response to your other post, the field would be illegal. Any delivery with more than two fielders behind square on the leg side is a no ball, because of Bodyline. It's the only field restriction in test cricket beyond the obvious stuff like no fielders within a certain distance of the bat.

 

[IndGunner]

Yeah, well what I'm saying is that I don't think that would be reasonable. Australia got themselves into this situation, and by using these tactics India were risking taking a win off the table. That alone should justify the tactics.

And in response to your other post, the field would be illegal. Any delivery with more than two fielders behind square on the leg side is a no ball, because of Bodyline. It's the only field restriction in test cricket beyond the obvious stuff like no fielders within a certain distance of the bat.

oh ok ty i am a bit ignorant onsome stuff i guess sorry i wasnt sure.

 

[pup11]

No one is doubting the legitamacy. Pup11 wants to enforce field restrictions to not let it happen again

I think more than calling in any sort of a restrictions or anything, i think the umpires should be allowed to judge on it, for example if a bowler bowls a leg stump line ala Giles and doesn't give a batsman any legitimate chance of scoring runs, umpires call it a wide in test cricket for negative bowling, so if a team packs one side of the field completely and bowls way outside the off-stump, then they should also be wided.

Let me clarify i don't have any problems with captains setting their fields in any way he wants, but its negative line i have a problem with.

 

[duffer]

It's a part of Test cricket which is essential especially against a strong batting lineup on a flat pitch. Get used to seeing it, it'll happen a lot.

 

[IndGunner]

I think more than calling in any sort of a restrictions or anything, i think the umpires should be allowed to judge on it, for example if a bowler bowls a leg stump line ala Giles and doesn't give a batsman any legitimate chance of scoring runs, umpires call it a wide in test cricket for negative bowling, so if a team packs one side of the field completely and bowls way outside the off-stump, then they should also be wided.

Let me clarify i don't have any problems with captains setting their fields in any way he wants, but its negative line i have a problem with.

Why do you have a problem with it?

And why have you not expressed this b4 im certain other australian bowlers have done this in the series b4 ala johnson. also watson does it occasionally too. It is used as a method of building up pressure becuase Australia had to score runs fast.

 

[pup11]

Some positive intent from the batsmen finally!!

 

[BoyBrumby]

To play devil's advocate slightly there's an argument that the field restriction was introduced after 32/33 to curb what were seen as overly negative tactics. Similarly with umpires now having the option to "wide" bowlers for pursuing a overly negative line after Ash Giles sent down several thousand overs down Sachin's leg side.

Is there a case to say an 8-1 off-side field is similarly negative & should be legislated against?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think if there's a genuine belief on the part of the umpire that the fielding side is doing nothing except trying to kill the game, it's fine to call a no ball or whatever. I don't think it can be based on the field alone.

But yeah, if you're packing the off side field and bowling 2 feet wide of off-stump all day, I've got no problem with the umpire eventually starting to call wides, it's the same justification as if it's done on the opposite side of the wicket. It has to be pretty consistent and pretty clear though.

 

[pup11]

Why do you have a problem with it?

And why have you not expressed this b4 im certain other australian bowlers have done this in the series b4 ala johnson. also watson does it occasionally too. It is used as a method of building up pressure becuase Australia had to score runs fast.

Anybody who bowls a negative line should be wided, its ok to look to dry up quick runs by setting a defensive field but bowling so wide that the batsmen even struggle to put bat on ball is not really what i would really call a fair tactic.

 

[IndGunner]

I think if there's a genuine belief on the part of the umpire that the fielding side is doing nothing except trying to kill the game, it's fine to call a no ball or whatever. I don't think it can be based on the field alone.

But yeah, if you're packing the off side field and bowling 2 feet wide of off-stump all day, I've got no problem with the umpire eventually starting to call wides, it's the same justification as if it's done on the opposite side of the wicket. It has to be pretty consistent and pretty clear though.

By eventually you mean how many overs? 5-10?

 

[IndGunner]

Anybody who bowls a negative line should be wided, its ok to look to dry up quick runs by setting a defensive field but bowling so wide that the batsmen even struggle to put bat on ball is not really what i would really call a fair tactic.

Well if u go back to the previous test Australia whr bowling the same line to LAx and Gambhir yet no one mentioned any sanctions or anything..

India bowled maybe a max of what 20 overs of the negative bowling?

 

[IndGunner]

It was done to slow down the imperious run scoring Aust were doing last night

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

By eventually you mean how many overs? 5-10?

I believe he is stating that it's up to the umpire's discretion.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

By eventually you mean how many overs? 5-10?

Would probably depend on the situation, and exactly how negative things were getting. Umpire's interpretation, obviously. That's what we have now anyway, just that it's generally limited to leg side bowling in terms of enforcement.

 

[IndGunner]

I believe he is stating that it's up to the umpire's discretion.

Ok then how long do you think india would have been able to have done it today just gimme a ball park figure im just curious how the umpire would be able to judge it? 5 maidens or something lol.
Edit: Ah ok disregard this then

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Anyone know if ABC radio is streaming this online? Or any other radio coverage?

 

[IndGunner]

Anyone know if ABC radio is streaming this online? Or any other radio coverage?

Its on the radio abc 774 if ur in melb abc radio, its online abc too i believe.