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

[luckyeddie]

*cough* sub-fielders

ohh you mean according to the rules of the game not the spirit.

I don't need to take you on - you defeat yourself every time you put finger to keyboard.

Already in this game Australia went off on TWO occasions. Why? Because it maximised their own chances of victory, of course, and I didn't hear you whining about it then. Now England have done the same (in far worse light), you don't like it.

You cannot even argue that it's a spin v seam factor, because on Friday England had Giles operating - and there was no signal then to Vaughan to get another twirly on as Bowden just did to Ponting (old antipodean pals' act?).

Anyway, moot point. Five minutes later, it started to rain.

 

[howardj]

If it was just about physical danger, Warnie could bowl at 2 o'clock in the morning.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You are right, and it shouldn't. My point is that it's the norm - some of the commentators are reacting as if this is was a controversial decision, just because two spinners were operating. But they do it all the time.

That's not true in my experience. Usually they offer light if it's a normal day (ie: no reason to assume that play needs to continue for the fielding side to win) and pacers are bowling. If the fielding captain is willing to bowl spin from both ends though, as we saw early in the series with Vaughan and Giles, they usually leave it on for as long as reasonably possible. To suggest that in that light they couldn't pick up Warne and Clarke is utterly ridiculous, and there is also there the suggestion that between when Lee bowled the second over and when Warne bowled the 6th the light deteriorated so much that it went from Lee bouncers being playable to Warne leg breaks being unplayable, which is also utterly ridiculous.

 

[MoxPearl]

By the way.. if aussie went off in that light while facing 2 spinners i would be ripping into them aswell.

Vaughan just ****es me off to no end :P

 

[Jamee999]

why dont they have lights at a cricket ground....

They do.

 

[MoxPearl]

They do.

Really ?? why aint they on ??

I been to tests where they have used the lights

 

[Scaly piscine]

b) Remember England winning in the dark in Pakistan? If they didn't go off then, why go off now? This is double standards and hypocritical by the England team.

It's not hypocritical, they haven't taken a firm stand on it then contradicted it, it's a decision that is completely down to them whether they choose to continue to bat or not. As said before the umpires should have made Pakistan bowl 15 overs an hour, but instead two wrongs made a right.

 

[howardj]

I wonder, during the break in play, whether Dean Jones will regale SBS viewers with his theory about "vexatious litigants", and that the umpires only went off for light before, after they consulted the lawyers!

 

[chalky]

There are other criteria, it doesn't just go on that one.

It's too dark to be considered fair to the batsmen. Atherton completely missing the point as per usual.

I agree the commentators trying to make controversy where there is none.

 

[Demolition Man]

I don't need to take you on - you defeat yourself every time you put finger to keyboard.

Already in this game Australia went off on TWO occasions. Why? Because it maximised their own chances of victory, of course, and I didn't hear you whining about it then. Now England have done the same (in far worse light), you don't like it.

You cannot even argue that it's a spin v seam factor, because on Friday England had Giles operating - and there was no signal then to Vaughan to get another twirly on as Bowden just did to Ponting (old antipodean pals' act?).

Anyway, moot point. Five minutes later, it started to rain.

How do you figure you win the seamer versus spinner theory ??

England wanted the aussies to go off, thus they continued with pace.

 

[Jamee999]

Really ?? why aint they on ??

I been to tests where they have used the lights

a) I dunno, but it's raining now anyway.

b) They weren't allowed in South Africa, I guess they're not allowed here.

 

[luckyeddie]

Against Flintoff and Harmison.

And really, I think the umpires have an obligation, rather than going with the whim of the crowd and the batting captain who wants to end the play, to do everything they reasonably can to get cricket played. In that sort of light win spin from each ends, it's utterly ridiculous to go off at the expense of a competitive finish to the series.

No it wasn't against Flintoff and Harmison.

It was Giles and Flintoff, and the umpires didn't say to Vaughan 'Take Freddie off, it's too dangerous' like they just did an over after McGrath (bonehead) bowled a bouncer to Vaughan. They just offered the light and you couldn't see Langer and Hayden for dust, so don't give me that nonsense just because it doesn't suit Australia now.

 

[Slow Love™]

That's not true in my experience. Usually they offer light if it's a normal day (ie: no reason to assume that play needs to continue for the fielding side to win) and pacers are bowling. If the fielding captain is willing to bowl spin from both ends though, as we saw early in the series with Vaughan and Giles, they usually leave it on for as long as reasonably possible. To suggest that in that light they couldn't pick up Warne and Clarke is utterly ridiculous, and there is also there the suggestion that between when Lee bowled the second over and when Warne bowled the 6th the light deteriorated so much that it went from Lee bouncers being playable to Warne leg breaks being unplayable, which is also utterly ridiculous.

Yeah, but "If the fielding captain is willing to bowl spin from both ends though, as we saw early in the series with Vaughan and Giles, they usually leave it on for as long as reasonably possible" is just another way of saying that more tolerance is extended, and it is. But I've certainly seen players offered the light when the faster bowlers are off more times than I can count.

As to light deterioration, like I said, if the readings aren't as bad as other times they've offered it, I'm totally with you. But light can deteriorate very quickly when it's on the way down, as anybody who's played cricket (or even backyard cricket ) can attest. I have no idea though as to the legitimacy on this particular occasion though, 'cause it's so hard to tell how bad the light is watching on TV, as the cameras tend to artificially enhance it.

Anyhow, it looks like rain kicked in pretty soon afterwards.

 

[_Ed_]

b) They weren't allowed in South Africa, I guess they're not allowed here.

Although I guess bringing up that test match isn't the best idea...

 

[aussie]

mayn i'm getting a headache rain is falling now nobody is playing, time is going & less time for Australia to force a result........

 

[Jamee999]

When artifical took over real(ya know what I mean) light, they came off.

 

[social]

They use lights in all test matches in Aus but that's because it's written into the playing conditions.

Unfortunately, the Oval has no lights and any such condition would be superfluous.

 

[Slow Love™]

a) I dunno, but it's raining now anyway.

b) They weren't allowed in South Africa, I guess they're not allowed here.

Usually, providing the lights are sufficient, this generally comes down to the two captains agreeing before the series that they be used once the natural light is poor enough, doesn't it? Anyone know if this was still the case, and if so, where the captains stood on this?

 

[Demolition Man]

They use lights in all test matches in Aus but that's because it's written into the playing conditions.

Unfortunately, the Oval has no lights and any such condition would be superfluous.

Unless of course England needed to win the last test and then temporary light would surely be errected. Every member of the crowd would bring a torch.

 

[luckyeddie]

How do you figure you win the seamer versus spinner theory ??

England wanted the aussies to go off, thus they continued with pace.

Giles and Flintoff were bowling, and the players never came back after tea on day two.

On day 3, the second time Australia turned tail and ran, it was once again the fearsome Giles who was operating from the Vauxhall End in tandem with Flintoff. On neither occasion did the umpires give England the option of playing two spinners.