***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[howardj]

especially with Hussey in good form

When will people get it through their heads, that unless injury strikes, then players will not be brought into the squad. There is zero chance of Hussey playing at the Oval, unless either Hayden or Langer are unable to play because of injury. Furthermore, there is zero chance of Hussey even being brought into the squad, unless there is an injury to one of the batsmen. It doesn't matter if Hussey is "already over there". Fact is, players do not get called into the Australian tour squad, unless there is an injury.

 

[wahindiawah]

Good point. Once Australia start bowling, Warne is the key. Tait too, possibly.

Unfortunately Australians don't have the the devil in McGrath. Had McGrath been playing then he along with Warne and Tait would have made life miserable for English batters even while chasing a score of as low as 200.

 

[shaka]

Lee will make life miserable in the beginning of the innings. I think he performs better with the new ball, he becomes motivated more when he has the new ball.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Okay guys, hypothetically here, what score would Australia need to be competitve?

I would say at least a 200 lead, which from here, looks pretty unlikely.

If we bowled well 200 would possibly make a game of it, but that's a pretty big if...I think we need more than one bowler going well for a couple of sessions to defend 200. England have outplayed us since the end of the First Test so it'll take a massive turn around in form in the space of 24 hours to get us out of this one in my opinion - what a difference 6 months has made, and some quality opposition of course.

 

[six_and_out]

What's with these substitutions?

Hi everyone

Disclaimer: I am an Aussie supporter!

Ricky Ponting was run out by Gary Pratt - the England sub fielder. Since he was a sub for an injured Simon Jones - fair enough. Ponting, however, does have a valid protest: throughout this Ashes series the England team has been rotating fast bowlers after their spells to go off the field and (presumably) have a rest. No such thing has been done by the Aussies - it is expected that fielders are out there for up to 90 overs each day. Fast bowlers aren't usually the quickest to get down on a ball on the ground to save boundaries, etc. Such sub fielders are seemingly desirable in this regard. This, itself, isn't exactly in keeping with the spirit of the game - but allowable no less.

This isn't what concerns me though. It's what goes on whilst a bowler is off the ground that concerns me. For an opportunistic team with little respect for the spirit of the substitution laws: a spell could be bowled and then the bowler leaves the ground, he might have a rest, then, how are we to know he's not consulting with his coach, his bowling coach, his batting coach and closely studying video of the batsmen currently at the crease trying to discern any vulnerabilities?

I think this is what's going on in the English dressing rooms and I think it is by far worse than when Cronje was on the field with an earpiece listening to advice from his coaches. I think this stinks.

Pratt was on for an injured Jones - that's fine. But then, the England fielding coach (I forget his name) was subbed on as well. Why were there two subs on the ground at the same time? Can't their bowlers think for themselves? Are the officially sanctioned breaks between sessions not adequate time for this kind of strategising? It is for everyone else.

Before my concerns are dismissed outright, I'd like to add that I am open to accepting a legitimate excuse for this behaviour. Can others please tell me why else they'd be doing this?

Failing that; then we can discuss the morality of these activities.

 

[Choora]

Well Australia are a bowler short, why point fingers at ponting when the guy has limited resorses?? Australia badly need an experianced pacer , and unfortunately they don't have any. Tait is a raw talent, Lee has been an underachiever and Kasp isn't doing anything special.

 

[social]

Hi everyone

Disclaimer: I am an Aussie supporter!

Ricky Ponting was run out by Gary Pratt - the England sub fielder. Since he was a sub for an injured Simon Jones - fair enough. Ponting, however, does have a valid protest: throughout this Ashes series the England team has been rotating fast bowlers after their spells to go off the field and (presumably) have a rest. No such thing has been done by the Aussies - it is expected that fielders are out there for up to 90 overs each day. Fast bowlers aren't usually the quickest to get down on a ball on the ground to save boundaries, etc. Such sub fielders are seemingly desirable in this regard. This, itself, isn't exactly in keeping with the spirit of the game - but allowable no less.

This isn't what concerns me though. It's what goes on whilst a bowler is off the ground that concerns me. For an opportunistic team with little respect for the spirit of the substitution laws: a spell could be bowled and then the bowler leaves the ground, he might have a rest, then, how are we to know he's not consulting with his coach, his bowling coach, his batting coach and closely studying video of the batsmen currently at the crease trying to discern any vulnerabilities?

I think this is what's going on in the English dressing rooms and I think it is by far worse than when Cronje was on the field with an earpiece listening to advice from his coaches. I think this stinks.

Pratt was on for an injured Jones - that's fine. But then, the England fielding coach (I forget his name) was subbed on as well. Why were there two subs on the ground at the same time? Can't their bowlers think for themselves? Are the officially sanctioned breaks between sessions not adequate time for this kind of strategising? It is for everyone else.

Before my concerns are dismissed outright, I'd like to add that I am open to accepting a legitimate excuse for this behaviour. Can others please tell me why else they'd be doing this?

Failing that; then we can discuss the morality of these activities.

I agree with everything you say but the fact is that there is a loop-hole in the laws and England have been exploiting it FOREVER.

I remember some of the earliest matches I watched where Eng sent their 12th man home on the 1st day and replaced him with a specialist fieldsman named Alan Ealham (who was then regarded as the best fieldsman in the country).

Opposition murmur, grumble, and even openly complain but NOTHING has ever been done about it.

It's cynical and against the spirit of the game but it is legal.

Rather than whine about it, opposition teams must lobby for rule changes or, failing that, Aus should register Derek Jeter or Alex Rodriguez (2 of the world's greatest baseballers) and use them instead of Jason Gillespie. After all, what would be so different to using them from Eng's choice of Pratt, who hasnt even played first-class cricket for a year.

Finally, let's also remember that the focus on this issue has only come about because Martyn ran Ponting out. Without that, people would still be ****ed but it would not be a major furore.

 

[six_and_out]

Yeah, I think a lot of ppl realise the potential for abuse of the rule with ace fielders and the like. Similarly, I had a good idea during Ian Healy's (slow and costly) demise with the bat: have another specialist batsmen in the side and put Healy (or other good keeper but mediocre batsman) as 12th man. I might be wrong, but I think there isn't a law exempting a 12th man from keeping

Anyway, not to 'poo-poo' your post, I did mention my primary concern was what actually goes on whilst a bowler is off the field: is he involved in cult worship? taking amphetamines? or (more likely) discussing how to bowl to "this guy" or "that guy" from studying the tapes, finding weaknesses from talking to a batting coach, etc. This is okay between sessions but I really think it's inappropriate between spells!

Thanks

 

[andyc]

Yeah, I think a lot of ppl realise the potential for abuse of the rule with ace fielders and the like. Similarly, I had a good idea during Ian Healy's (slow and costly) demise with the bat: have another specialist batsmen in the side and put Healy (or other good keeper but mediocre batsman) as 12th man. I might be wrong, but I think there isn't a law exempting a 12th man from keeping

Anyway, not to 'poo-poo' your post, I did mention my primary concern was what actually goes on whilst a bowler is off the field: is he involved in cult worship? taking amphetamines? or (more likely) discussing how to bowl to "this guy" or "that guy" from studying the tapes, finding weaknesses from talking to a batting coach, etc. This is okay between sessions but I really think it's inappropriate between spells!

Thanks

Actually, I'm pretty sure a twelth man isn't allowed to be in a 'specialist position,' such as keeper, slip or bat-pad.

 

[simmy]

Yeah but Simon Jones is actually injured...

You guys do the same a lot of the time. Hodge is an excellent fielder.

Plus there is no law against it, and Ponting seriously embarassed himself yesterday.
As if the scorecard was doing that for him! HEHE!

 

[andyc]

Plus there is no law against it, and Ponting seriously embarassed himself yesterday.
As if the scorecard was doing that for him! HEHE!

Surely you mean 'as if the scorecard wasn't doing that for him?'

 

[luckyeddie]

Hi everyone

Disclaimer: I am an Aussie supporter!

Ricky Ponting was run out by Gary Pratt This isn't what concerns me though. It's what goes on whilst a bowler is off the ground that concerns me. For an opportunistic team with little respect for the spirit of the substitution laws: a spell could be bowled and then the bowler leaves the ground, he might have a rest, then, how are we to know he's not consulting with his coach, his bowling coach, his batting coach and closely studying video of the batsmen currently at the crease trying to discern any vulnerabilities?

I think this is what's going on in the English dressing rooms and I think it is by far worse than when Cronje was on the field with an earpiece listening to advice from his coaches. I think this stinks.

<snippety>

Before my concerns are dismissed outright, I'd like to add that I am open to accepting a legitimate excuse for this behaviour. Can others please tell me why else they'd be doing this?

Failing that; then we can discuss the morality of these activities.

Welcome to Cricket Web - and as for you being an Aussie supporter - we can't all be perfect ( ).

I didn't really notice it before, but of course Ponting has fallen foul of the substitute fielder before in this series, having been caught by Hildreth at Lord's (I didn't see that game - on holiday).

I really, truly and sincerely hadn't noticed that the bowler nipping off at the end of a spell had been an issue at all until Boycott and Tanny Grig were talking about it yesterday, and Greigy seemed to be going a bit apoplectic (or was it the other way around) just after the Ponting dismissal. I seem to remember once in the third test that Ponting wanted to bring Lee (?) on, but he'd been off the field for more than the 8 minutes they allow and he had to wait two more overs before he could bowl, but that's about it.

I've even been through the whole Cricinfo B-b-B commentary for the preceding three tests and the word 'sub' or 'substitute' is conspicuous by its absence apart from the aforementioned Hildreth catch and Cheaty's (sorry - Brad Hodge's) two catches whilst on for Michael Clarke - there's a chance that if it was much of an issue then the B-b-B chaps whould have mentioned it (they seem to rattle about most irrelevances, whether the outfield in South Africa has been painted or not, Pietersen's latest hairstyle and so on).

As for what's actually going on in the England dressing-room, well, there are three schools of thought there.

The first is that there are a team of molecular biologists working with the England side, and they have Ian Botham strapped down to a gurney. What they are very possibly doing is gradually sucking the 'Spirit of 81' out of the great man, mixing it with toenail clippings and skin cells of the great England players of the past (you don't really think there's actually ASHES in the urn, do you? Nope. 'Biological samples') and injecting them into the England bowlers, just to give them a lift to beat your lot.

The second is that it's a case of 'fighting fire with fire'. We know that you have the itinerant gypsy Jason Gillespie in your dressing-room, and that all your players have bought his 'lucky heather', a bag of pegs and crossed his palm with silver, which gives you an unfair advantage in terms of the Unnatural and being able to call up the dark forces of the underworld (how else can you explain Shane Warne other than the fact that he is the Antichrist?). Each bowler has secretly, at some time in his spell, passed close enough to one of the Aussie batsmen to be able to capture a little of his 'essence' - a fleck of dandruff, a hair, his lagery smell - and this is then rushed off the pitch, quickly mixed with wax and moulded into an effigy of one of the batsmen. The effigy is then manipulated in such a way to mimic a ridiculous stroke (I think we all recognise the ways that batsman continually get dismissed in the same way), but I promise you Voodoo cannot take the credit for Hayden - he's just rubbish.

The third is they want a wee. I think we can discount this one though.

OK?

 

[tassietiger]

You guys do the same a lot of the time. Hodge is an excellent fielder.

Hodge is also an excellent batter, who should've played a fair few more tests for Australia than he has. If he played for any other country, he would've played at least 50, pushing for 100.

This Gary Pratt character on the other hand, wasn't in contention for a spot in the Test team, and shouldn't be allowed to be named part of it.

This game is getting more and more Americanised...firstly the American-sounding PowerPlays and SuperSubs, and soon enough there will separate teams for batting, bowling and fielding.

 

[SJS]

Welcome to Cricket Web - and as for you being an Aussie supporter - we can't all be perfect ( ).

I didn't really notice it before, but of course Ponting has fallen foul of the substitute fielder before in this series, having been caught by Hildreth at Lord's (I didn't see that game - on holiday).

I really, truly and sincerely hadn't noticed that the bowler nipping off at the end of a spell had been an issue at all until Boycott and Tanny Grig were talking about it yesterday, and Greigy seemed to be going a bit apoplectic (or was it the other way around) just after the Ponting dismissal. I seem to remember once in the third test that Ponting wanted to bring Lee (?) on, but he'd been off the field for more than the 8 minutes they allow and he had to wait two more overs before he could bowl, but that's about it.

I've even been through the whole Cricinfo B-b-B commentary for the preceding three tests and the word 'sub' or 'substitute' is conspicuous by its absence apart from the aforementioned Hildreth catch and Cheaty's (sorry - Brad Hodge's) two catches whilst on for Michael Clarke - there's a chance that if it was much of an issue then the B-b-B chaps whould have mentioned it (they seem to rattle about most irrelevances, whether the outfield in South Africa has been painted or not, Pietersen's latest hairstyle and so on).

As for what's actually going on in the England dressing-room, well, there are three schools of thought there.

The first is that there are a team of molecular biologists working with the England side, and they have Ian Botham strapped down to a gurney. What they are very possibly doing is gradually sucking the 'Spirit of 81' out of the great man, mixing it with toenail clippings and skin cells of the great England players of the past (you don't really think there's actually ASHES in the urn, do you? Nope. 'Biological samples') and injecting them into the England bowlers, just to give them a lift to beat your lot.

The second is that it's a case of 'fighting fire with fire'. We know that you have the itinerant gypsy Jason Gillespie in your dressing-room, and that all your players have bought his 'lucky heather', a bag of pegs and crossed his palm with silver, which gives you an unfair advantage in terms of the Unnatural and being able to call up the dark forces of the underworld (how else can you explain Shane Warne other than the fact that he is the Antichrist?). Each bowler has secretly, at some time in his spell, passed close enough to one of the Aussie batsmen to be able to capture a little of his 'essence' - a fleck of dandruff, a hair, his lagery smell - and this is then rushed off the pitch, quickly mixed with wak and moulded into an effigy of one of the batsmen. The effigy is then manipulated in such a way to mimic a ridiculous stroke (I think we all recognise the ways that batsman continually get dismissed in the same way), but I promise you Voodoo cannot take the credit for Hayden - he's just rubbish).

The third is they want a wee. I think we can discount this one though.

OK?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Just for the purpose of clarification, is the suggestion that you hadn't ever noticed England always having their specialist fielder on through the whole series to date a serious one? You didn't notice that Solanki spent about 30 overs a match on the field during the ODIs? Or the various specialist fielders England have pulled out in each of the tests so far? This is the first time England has had a legitimate in-game injury of any kind to deal with, and there hasn't been a single match in which England haven't extensively used a sub fielder.

As far as when it happens is concerned, well if you haven't noticed it on the television coverage (they do mention it quite a lot), you can easily look through the post archives on here. At least a few of us, from both sides of the fence, were pointing out the fact that what England was doing with Solanki was against the rules back as early as the first couple of NatWest Series games. John Buchanan mentioned it in an interview before the NWS final as well.

Anyway, if they "want a wee", they can either have one according to the rules without a sub, or simply do what every other team in the world does and not abuse the privelage. Nobody really cares if a sub who is a legitimate 12th man spends a few minutes on the field while someone else goes off to take a ****, but when you're recruiting specialist fielders who don't even play first class cricket and they're spending a couple of hours a day on the field, it becomes a problem.

 

[andyc]

Just for the purpose of clarification, is the suggestion that you hadn't ever noticed England always having their specialist fielder on through the whole series to date a serious one? You didn't notice that Solanki spent about 30 overs a match on the field during the ODIs? Or the various specialist fielders England have pulled out in each of the tests so far? This is the first time England has had a legitimate in-game injury of any kind to deal with, and there hasn't been a single match in which England haven't extensively used a sub fielder.

As far as when it happens is concerned, well if you haven't noticed it on the television coverage (they do mention it quite a lot), you can easily look through the post archives on here. At least a few of us, from both sides of the fence, were pointing out the fact that what England was doing with Solanki was against the rules back as early as the first couple of NatWest Series games. John Buchanan mentioned it in an interview before the NWS final as well.

Anyway, if they "want a wee", they can either have one according to the rules without a sub, or simply do what every other team in the world does and not abuse the privelage. Nobody really cares if a sub who is a legitimate 12th man spends a few minutes on the field while someone else goes off to take a ****, but when you're recruiting specialist fielders who don't even play first class cricket and they're spending a couple of hours a day on the field, it becomes a problem.

Well said, good post.

 

[greg]

Welcome to Cricket Web - and as for you being an Aussie supporter - we can't all be perfect ( ).

I didn't really notice it before, but of course Ponting has fallen foul of the substitute fielder before in this series, having been caught by Hildreth at Lord's (I didn't see that game - on holiday).

I really, truly and sincerely hadn't noticed that the bowler nipping off at the end of a spell had been an issue at all until Boycott and Tanny Grig were talking about it yesterday, and Greigy seemed to be going a bit apoplectic (or was it the other way around) just after the Ponting dismissal. I seem to remember once in the third test that Ponting wanted to bring Lee (?) on, but he'd been off the field for more than the 8 minutes they allow and he had to wait two more overs before he could bowl, but that's about it.

I've even been through the whole Cricinfo B-b-B commentary for the preceding three tests and the word 'sub' or 'substitute' is conspicuous by its absence apart from the aforementioned Hildreth catch and Cheaty's (sorry - Brad Hodge's) two catches whilst on for Michael Clarke - there's a chance that if it was much of an issue then the B-b-B chaps whould have mentioned it (they seem to rattle about most irrelevances, whether the outfield in South Africa has been painted or not, Pietersen's latest hairstyle and so on).


OK?

It attracted a fair bit of comment during the ODI series - where IMO England really WERE pushing the rules to the limit. What is going on in the tests is no different to what has been happening for 25 years. The Aussies are just annoyed because they have to bring on Jason Gillespie (which is also probably a reason why the aren't doing it much), whereas England, being the home team, have someone better. They should show more foresight. On the last tour of South Africa we took Paul Collingwood with us, not to play (he clearly wasn't the best candidate for that job) but to be a specialist fielder when required. Little details to give an edge which used to be the hallmark of the (increasingly amateurish) Australians.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Actually, I'm pretty sure a twelth man isn't allowed to be in a 'specialist position,' such as keeper, slip or bat-pad.

A sub fielder cannot act as a wicket-keeper. Aside from that, they can do anything, and the opposing captain has no right of a appeal with regard to where they field, how long they are on for or why the other guy is off.

 

[luckyeddie]

Just for the purpose of clarification, is the suggestion that you hadn't ever noticed England always having their specialist fielder on through the whole series to date a serious one? You didn't notice that Solanki spent about 30 overs a match on the field during the ODIs? Or the various specialist fielders England have pulled out in each of the tests so far? This is the first time England has had a legitimate in-game injury of any kind to deal with, and there hasn't been a single match in which England haven't extensively used a sub fielder.

As far as when it happens is concerned, well if you haven't noticed it on the television coverage (they do mention it quite a lot), you can easily look through the post archives on here. At least a few of us, from both sides of the fence, were pointing out the fact that what England was doing with Solanki was against the rules back as early as the first couple of NatWest Series games. John Buchanan mentioned it in an interview before the NWS final as well.

Anyway, if they "want a wee", they can either have one according to the rules without a sub, or simply do what every other team in the world does and not abuse the privelage. Nobody really cares if a sub who is a legitimate 12th man spends a few minutes on the field while someone else goes off to take a ****, but when you're recruiting specialist fielders who don't even play first class cricket and they're spending a couple of hours a day on the field, it becomes a problem.

No, I was perfectly serious about the entire piece - not a word of a lie, especially the bit about Warne being the Antichrist.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, I was perfectly serious about the entire piece - not a word of a lie, especially the bit about Warne being the Antichrist.

I thought the Antichrist was meant to be popular, rather than a laughing stock?