Duncan Fletcher Blasts Australia

[Scaly piscine]

Opposition players, officials and commentators have been complaining about it for years.

Eng fielded substitute fieldsmen for the vast majority of the ODIs and the tests.

No they haven't been complaining about it for years. England have fielded 'specialist' substitute fielders for a while and none of the other teams had a big cry about it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Because the rule allows 8 minutes for someone to go off without it affecting their rights to bowling, yet England are apparently using these 8 minutes to go off and have a massage etc to get loose to bowl - how can they do that in such a short time - something nobody has been able to tell us yet, funnily enough.

First of all, I'm pretty non-plussed about the whole issue. But if you have a physio at the ground, getting off for 5 minutes of work on your back can do a heap of good for you, and (in economic terms)the benefit is much greater than the cost of having him off for 5-8 minutes. So why wouldn't you?

 

[Deja moo]

5 minutes could be long enough to watch some replays of your bowling .

 

[Scaly piscine]

Well... 10 seconds is long enough to tell a number 11 to bat outside of his crease when you're trying to save a game...

 

[marc71178]

On the whole, Australia got the majority of poor decisions. They seemed to come in bundles aswell. eg Ponting and Martyns inside edge lb's, and Warne on several occasions.

It's a bit harsh to call the Ponting inside edge a poor decision when there were about 15 slo-mo replays needed to require the edge to be picked up...

 

[marc71178]

BTW, leaving the ground to have a massage to get loose is illegal and it was not an Australian that highlighted it, it was Michael Holding.

Stedman Yes it would be, if it happened.

But please explain how it could happen in 8 minutes (including time to get off and back on)

 

[parttimer]

Stedman Yes it would be, if it happened.

But please explain how it could happen in 8 minutes (including time to get off and back on)

Assuming it takes two minutes to get to and from to the sheds, that leaves 6 minutes for a massage. Are you saying that a 6 minute massage would not be beneficial to the body before coming out to bowl?

 

[marc71178]

If you assume 2 minutes, which is very unlikely if you look at the location of dressing rooms etc at the various grounds.

 

[Son Of Coco]

To be fair though, he did have a point about the not needing a runner issue - suggests he can't have been too bad.




He's, IMO, the main reason England won the Ashes, because the transformation in English Cricket that he has brought about has been amazing.

Far from just an "also-ran", although if he's a smug, dull, humourless tool, what does that make Ned Flanders?

If he did have a point about Clarke needing a runner then surely Ponting had a valid point re: every English bowler needing a rest after they'd completed a spell...I think a guy called Rod Marsh may have played a very large part in the turn around in attitude in the English camp.

 

[Son Of Coco]

What does that have to do with this issue? They are not the "best" in the world when it comes to fair play. YOu didn't need to watch the ICC awards OR the Ashes to know that.

You're right, and next time I watch the MTV awards I'll take it as given that Jesse McCartney is one of the best singers in the world.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not to mention the "mental disintegration" crap used by Steve Waugh and Waugh and Bevan playing for to get the Windies into the super 6 in the WC 99... They were all within the spirit of the game, weren't they?

I think you should take Sted's advice here too...

 

[Son Of Coco]

So in other words you've got absolutely no evidence to say that Fletcher is wrong.

And I note that nobody has shown how these 8 minutes are enough time to have a full massage etc.

Personally, I am very concerned about the state of the English bowler's bladders...but having said that the fact does remain that they were simply better than the Australian's. It is possible too, I guess, that the breaks were used as nothing more than a way to get up the Aussie's noses as it is within the laws of the game - even if it is slightly dubious. If this is the case, then it worked a treat. If the Aussies went off for the same number of 'toilet breaks' during the series I don't think it would have changed the outcome of the tests.

 

[Dasa]

First of all, I'm pretty non-plussed about the whole issue. But if you have a physio at the ground, getting off for 5 minutes of work on your back can do a heap of good for you, and (in economic terms)the benefit is much greater than the cost of having him off for 5-8 minutes. So why wouldn't you?

Nonplussed means you are bothered by it (sort of) - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=nonplussed&x=0&y=0

It's a terrible word - means the opposite of what it sounds like.

 

[marc71178]

If he did have a point about Clarke needing a runner then surely Ponting had a valid point re: every English bowler needing a rest after they'd completed a spell...

Except how do they have this "rest" when there's 8 minutes allowed (to include getting off and on) - if they rush off, then they're hardly going to be helping this "rest"

 

[Son Of Coco]

Except how do they have this "rest" when there's 8 minutes allowed (to include getting off and on) - if they rush off, then they're hardly going to be helping this "rest"

That's assuming they're only off for 8 minutes. If they're off for longer they have to wait the same number of overs as they've been off for to bowl again (do they not?). I can't see how this would matter if you've just finished a spell and aren't expected to bowl again for 15-20 overs. Were all the English bowlers only off for 8 minutes at a time? (I don't know the answer by the way, so that's actually a genuine question! haha)

Edit: If they were only off for 8 minutes, and this is useless as far as having a rest goes, why the need to go off so often after a spell? It's not something I've ever seen before.

 

[social]

That's assuming they're only off for 8 minutes. If they're off for longer they have to wait the same number of overs as they've been off for to bowl again (do they not?). I can't see how this would matter if you've just finished a spell and aren't expected to bowl again for 15-20 overs. Were all the English bowlers only off for 8 minutes at a time? (I don't know the answer by the way, so that's actually a genuine question! haha)

Edit: If they were only off for 8 minutes, and this is useless as far as having a rest goes, why the need to go off so often after a spell? It's not something I've ever seen before.

Marc incorrectly claims that England's bowlers stayed off for 8 minutes or less on each occasion they left the ground.

The scenario you paint is closer to the truth.

 

[honestbharani]

You're right, and next time I watch the MTV awards I'll take it as given that Jesse McCartney is one of the best singers in the world.

lol. They are not the fairest team in the world and that is a fact, though, awards or no awards.

 

[Top_Cat]

Nonplussed means you are bothered by it (sort of) - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...plussed&x=0&y=0

It's a terrible word - means the opposite of what it sounds like.

I think the word he may be looking for is ambivalent.

Of course he could be non-plussed by the attention the issue is receiving! If that's the case, I share the feeling. For mine, it's doing nothing but take the gloss off one of the greatest Test series I've ever seen. Does it enhance the memory of the series? No. Would Australia have won if England didn't supposedly bend the rules? No. Will anyone care in a month? No. Is it time for everyone on both sides of the fence to drop the damn issue? YES.

Then again, us Aussies like a decent grudge; look at Bodyline and that happened 72 years ago...........

 

[social]

I think the word he may be looking for is ambivalent.

Of course he could be non-plussed by the attention the issue is receiving! If that's the case, I share the feeling. For mine, it's doing nothing but take the gloss off one of the greatest Test series I've ever seen. Does it enhance the memory of the series? No. Would Australia have won if England didn't supposedly bend the rules? No. Will anyone care in a month? No. Is it time for everyone on both sides of the fence to drop the damn issue? YES.

Then again, us Aussies like a decent grudge; look at Bodyline and that happened 72 years ago...........

The issue was raised in relation to a claim by Fletcher which implied that Aus was the only side in the series whose behaviour contravened the spirit of the game.

Obviously, that is not correct.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The issue was raised in relation to a claim by Fletcher which implied that Aus was the only side in the series whose behaviour contravened the spirit of the game.

Obviously, that is not correct.

England won the spirit of cricket award (or whatever it was), Ponting was the one that was saying that his team plays to the spirit of the game blah blah.