The Ashes Tour 2013

[BookMan]

Both captain's should be applauded for trying to win the game, but in the end the game of cricket lost due to the stupid rules of the ICC. Offering the batsmen the light worked fine for years so no idea why they changed the rules.

A packed house at the Oval with every run being cheered, all building up to a great finish and they come off for bad light.The girlfriend was none too happy either wondering what all the fuss was about when i started yelling at the screen at 1 in the morning.

I don't mind the light meters. It makes the decision a neutral one, as it should be. Here though, you have to wonder if the umpires were making their own interpretation of the light reading and should have actually called it earlier.

As for the packed house...disappointing they didn't see an English win, but they should be applauding Clarke for giving them a semblance of a days entertainment and a chance to win, rather than casting him as the villain.

England's first innings batting display was a dour performance at best. The English fans should rightly ask why England didn't go full throttle for a 4-0 win from the start of their innings. Nothing wrong with strangling a test, but in this case England had no reason to.

[theblether]

Hows this for a story?......

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/neil-mitchell-blog/england-players-urinated-on-pitch/20130826-2sl1r.html

[BookMan]

Hows this for a story?......

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/neil-mitchell-blog/england-players-urinated-on-pitch/20130826-2sl1r.html

The controversies just keep on coming for this series

No big deal in my book. The guys were celebrating a series win and were a bit pissed. Maybe they were marking their territory?

[theblether]

Hows this for a story?......

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/neil-mitchell-blog/england-players-urinated-on-pitch/20130826-2sl1r.html

The controversies just keep on coming for this series

No big deal in my book. The guys were celebrating a series win and were a bit pissed. Maybe they were marking their territory?

I'm not that fussed either but wait until the Daily Mail gets a hold of it. They love stories like this

[BookMan]

Hows this for a story?......

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/neil-mitchell-blog/england-players-urinated-on-pitch/20130826-2sl1r.html

The controversies just keep on coming for this series

No big deal in my book. The guys were celebrating a series win and were a bit pissed. Maybe they were marking their territory?

I'm not that fussed either but wait until the Daily Mail gets a hold of it. They love stories like this

If they come with photos maybe we'll know if the England lads have even more to brag about

[Basil B]

Well it was exciting end...

Still think a 10am start is late enough, bad luck if the Barmy Army can not get out of bed to make the start.

I hope it was not too much for the more senior aficionado of the sport.

[7by7]

A scheduled 10am start instead of 11am would not have made any difference yesterday as the heavy overnight rain meant that play wasn't possible until 11:30 anyway.

It's a shame that the rules meant the game could not be played to a finish, but rules is rules. Having set the benchmark on Thursday when they stopped play due to the light, the umpires had no choice; they had to stop last night when the light dropped to that level.

Kudos to Clarke for setting a reachable target with his declaration, and kudos to England for going for it.

Of course Mr Knowsnothingabouttestcricket is spouting his usual rubbish, and I see he's brought a friend along this time.

Let me ask them a question; though neither of them will answer it:

If someone involved in one or both camps had taken advantage of the bookies odds for a draw; why did both teams put so much effort into trying to get a result?

[Chicog]

Why all these plaudits for Clarke? He only declared to give Australia a chance at winning it; once it was obvious England had the upper hand, he was badgering the umpires to stop the game for light. Aleem Dar had to push the whiner away.

[BookMan]

Why all these plaudits for Clarke? He only declared to give Australia a chance at winning it; once it was obvious England had the upper hand, he was badgering the umpires to stop the game for light. Aleem Dar had to push the whiner away.

England batsmen would have done the same if they were looking at a loss. Doing a 'Broad' is the term now.

[bigbamboo]

Both captain's should be applauded for trying to win the game, but in the end the game of cricket lost due to the stupid rules of the ICC. Offering the batsmen the light worked fine for years so no idea why they changed the rules.

A packed house at the Oval with every run being cheered, all building up to a great finish and they come off for bad light.The girlfriend was none too happy either wondering what all the fuss was about when i started yelling at the screen at 1 in the morning.

A draw was a fair result in the end. 4-0 would have been a bit harsh.

All credit to Michael Clarke for setting up the challenge. Sure the Aussies slowed it down at the end but so had we done earlier and the reason Clarke was getting edgy at the finish was because he didn't believe the light would have lasted so long when he set the target and it was beginning to look as if he'd gone and done a 'Cronje'.

[Chicog]

Why all these plaudits for Clarke? He only declared to give Australia a chance at winning it; once it was obvious England had the upper hand, he was badgering the umpires to stop the game for light. Aleem Dar had to push the whiner away.

England batsmen would have done the same if they were looking at a loss. Doing a 'Broad' is the term now.

I have no doubt they would, and I'd be equally skeptical about applying a "sporting" tag to what is better described as a piece of gamesmanship.

And I haven't heard of "Doing a Broad", but I suppose the convicts have to have someone on which to try and offload their misery.

[tigerfish]

A scheduled 10am start instead of 11am would not have made any difference yesterday as the heavy overnight rain meant that play wasn't possible until 11:30 anyway.

It's a shame that the rules meant the game could not be played to a finish, but rules is rules. Having set the benchmark on Thursday when they stopped play due to the light, the umpires had no choice; they had to stop last night when the light dropped to that level.

Kudos to Clarke for setting a reachable target with his declaration, and kudos to England for going for it.

Of course Mr Knowsnothingabouttestcricket is spouting his usual rubbish, and I see he's brought a friend along this time.

Let me ask them a question; though neither of them will answer it:

If someone involved in one or both camps had taken advantage of the bookies odds for a draw; why did both teams put so much effort into trying to get a result?

i will answer your question, but first one for you.

why do you think the bookies made the draw such a nailed on cert ?

before the test started it was the outside of the three outcomes at 3/1 or there about's depending on which bookie you went with.

people who know a thing or two about the game do a bit of homework !

everyone knows that the oval is a great batting track, then take into account team selection ( 2 big calls that not even the pundits could predict as far as England were concerned ) then the good start the Aussies got on the first morning and most importantly the 5 day weather forecast.

by lunch on the first day the bookies were running scared and had made the draw the odds on fav.

now who broadcasts the ashes and who owns the company ? Sky, yes ? Murdoch, yes ? ( bent as they come ) Sky also own their own betting company btw.

and what about the ad breaks, ever seen them ? near enough in between every over there are countless amounts of book making firms offering in running betting offers.

do you not think it at all possible that maybe someone behind the scenes might have tried to tap someone up for a fee ? i mean it wouldn't be the first time would it ? and the game hasn't exactly got a squeaky clean image has it, as far a betting scams go ?

or have you got your blinkers on again, as usual ?

all i was suggesting initially was that the way Tests are played these days and the way the teams play them, to me isn't the way i think the game should be played. ie i don't like the influence that twenty/20 has on cricket these days. teams don't know how to bat anymore. look at this series for example. how many times did either side reach a score over 400 ? you even nearly had one side batting their 2nd innings on the first day a few times for god sake.

the game is just all about keeping the rich that have too much influence and that make too much money out of cricket even richer.

and i think that it just might be conceivable that maybe some was scared of losing a bit too much money out of this test, so a little bit of friendly persuasion might of been administered.

[David48]

Well, full credit to the Poms.

We lost and we will strive to be better.

Agreeing with BookMan, some handy performances, but no man of the series for the Aussies.

Well done chaps ... see you in Australia and see if we can reverse the result.

[7by7]

Let me ask them a question; though neither of them will answer it:

If someone involved in one or both camps had taken advantage of the bookies odds for a draw; why did both teams put so much effort into trying to get a result?

i will answer your question, but first one for you.

A lot more than one question in your post!

The bookies, and everyone else, thought that after England's negative batting on Friday (a tactic that owed nothing to T20 cricket or the IPL!) and the loss of Saturday that the game was going to be a draw.

The Oval used to be a great batting track. People who really know about the game, Botham, Warne, Boycott, Holding etc., all agree that this pitch was rubbish.

The rest of your post is paranoid rubbish.

Friday England's first priority was to reach the follow on target. To do that they had to not lose wickets. It's a tired cliché of his which appears in Boycott Bingo, but Boycott is correct when he says "You can't score runs in the dressing room."

As you claim to be a lover of good old fashioned test cricket and a hater of the modern game and a Yorkshireman, I would have thought you would have agreed with him and England's tactics on Friday!

Sunday morning after reaching the follow on target England knew that they were unlikely to lose; so they batted with a bit more freedom.

Clarke, with or without discussion with Cook, decided to try and salvage a win in this series by making a game of it. Doubtless because he didn't want to be the first Aussie captain since 1977 to leave England without winning at least one test.

When Clarke declared at tea, England went for it; doubtless because they wanted to be the first English team ever to win a home Ashes series 4-0.

No conspiracy involving bookies or Murdoch; just sound, cricketing reasons. Reasons which are used all the time in county cricket to try and get a result.

But maybe you think county cricket is corrupt as well!

I do agree, though, that both the 50 over game and T20 have had an influence on the way test cricket is played these days and the expectations of those who watch it.; sometimes good, sometimes not so.

I have commented on that earlier in this topic, though, and have no intention of repeating it here. Go look for those comments if you wish.

As for my question, I do admit to a misreading and misunderstanding of your previous post on this; having reread it I now assume you actually meant that Clarke and Cook had quietly bet on a result.

[tigerfish]

Let me ask them a question; though neither of them will answer it:

If someone involved in one or both camps had taken advantage of the bookies odds for a draw; why did both teams put so much effort into trying to get a result?

i will answer your question, but first one for you.

A lot more than one question in your post!

The bookies, and everyone else, thought that after England's negative batting on Friday (a tactic that owed nothing to T20 cricket or the IPL!) and the loss of Saturday that the game was going to be a draw.

The Oval used to be a great batting track. People who really know about the game, Botham, Warne, Boycott, Holding etc., all agree that this pitch was rubbish.

The rest of your post is paranoid rubbish.

Friday England's first priority was to reach the follow on target. To do that they had to not lose wickets. It's a tired cliché of his which appears in Boycott Bingo, but Boycott is correct when he says "You can't score runs in the dressing room."

As you claim to be a lover of good old fashioned test cricket and a hater of the modern game and a Yorkshireman, I would have thought you would have agreed with him and England's tactics on Friday!

Sunday morning after reaching the follow on target England knew that they were unlikely to lose; so they batted with a bit more freedom.

Clarke, with or without discussion with Cook, decided to try and salvage a win in this series by making a game of it. Doubtless because he didn't want to be the first Aussie captain since 1977 to leave England without winning at least one test.

When Clarke declared at tea, England went for it; doubtless because they wanted to be the first English team ever to win a home Ashes series 4-0.

No conspiracy involving bookies or Murdoch; just sound, cricketing reasons. Reasons which are used all the time in county cricket to try and get a result.

But maybe you think county cricket is corrupt as well!

I do agree, though, that both the 50 over game and T20 have had an influence on the way test cricket is played these days and the expectations of those who watch it.; sometimes good, sometimes not so.

I have commented on that earlier in this topic, though, and have no intention of repeating it here. Go look for those comments if you wish.

As for my question, I do admit to a misreading and misunderstanding of your previous post on this; having reread it I now assume you actually meant that Clarke and Cook had quietly bet on a result.

what you have to try and understand though is how bookies read betting trends. if they think something isn't above board they will suspend betting or make it inconceivable to even think of betting on one outcome because the odds are so ridiculously short. in this instance they did't suspend, but did make the odds incredibly short. put another way, they bottled it because somebody lumped on big time.

even more suspect though was that towards the end of the test England chased a 50 over score in one session, went odds on and then the umpires pulled the plug. which meant that somewhere a long the line the bookies got out of jail.

over the years they have made countless amounts of errors concerning cricket betting and tend to like to make their rules up as they go a long.

2 examples off the top of my head. the England vs Pakistan test were the umpires ruled in favor of England winning the test after the Pakistani's walked off. England were heavily odds against to win that test when it all kicked off and guess what ? they paid out on England and pocketed a hat full. the ICC later ruled the game a tie or void ( can't remember ) and gave the Aussie umpire a disciplinary, but the bookies never refunded the bets, even though they say they pay out on the official result.

the other example being when they first started to take bet on i day cricket they forgot to conveniently have odds on a draw result. if you asked them for odds on a draw they wouldn't, but take part of your stake as a losing bet if you bet on one side to win and the outcome was a draw.

we also both know that county cricket a long with t/20 40 and 50 over cricket is a totally different kettle of fish, don't we. so that argument is a non starter i'm afraid.

and for your info, although i will let you off, even though i have posted it before. but you obviously haven't read the post properly

i am the grandson and the son of of a Yorkshireman and Yorkshire lass.

[Bangkokhatter]

Both captain's should be applauded for trying to win the game, but in the end the game of cricket lost due to the stupid rules of the ICC. Offering the batsmen the light worked fine for years so no idea why they changed the rules.

A packed house at the Oval with every run being cheered, all building up to a great finish and they come off for bad light.The girlfriend was none too happy either wondering what all the fuss was about when i started yelling at the screen at 1 in the morning.

I don't mind the light meters. It makes the decision a neutral one, as it should be. Here though, you have to wonder if the umpires were making their own interpretation of the light reading and should have actually called it earlier.

As for the packed house...disappointing they didn't see an English win, but they should be applauding Clarke for giving them a semblance of a days entertainment and a chance to win, rather than casting him as the villain.

England's first innings batting display was a dour performance at best. The English fans should rightly ask why England didn't go full throttle for a 4-0 win from the start of their innings. Nothing wrong with strangling a test, but in this case England had no reason to.

Now i've calmed down a bit, I agree the rules are the rules and the Umpire's took them off when the bad light matched the previous walk off as 7x7 mentioned. As for Clarke getting abuse, was by a boozed up and excitable crowd ( no excuses ) but on many web boards today I read many people applauding him and saying if the roles were reversed we would have done the same, and we would have.

As for the conspiracy theorists, not buying it, too much media exposure and not all of them are owned by Murdoch .

See you all in November when I reckon the score line may be very different.

[nong38]

Well part 1 is over and England deserved to win. Let not get carried away though 3-0 flatered England, the Aussies were better then we expected. Good bowling but batting did not seem to have recognized line up to me. England's batting was not up to par either. Part 2 will be a good contest still expect England to win but by 1 or 2 tests and I hope to see more respect and sportsmanship from both sides. I also hope England take James Taylor he is one for the future.

First ball off an Ashes contest is usually a let down, but, still one of the truly great moments in sport for me.

[Basil B]

A scheduled 10am start instead of 11am would not have made any difference yesterday as the heavy overnight rain meant that play wasn't possible until 11:30 anyway.

It's a shame that the rules meant the game could not be played to a finish, but rules is rules. Having set the benchmark on Thursday when they stopped play due to the light, the umpires had no choice; they had to stop last night when the light dropped to that level.

Kudos to Clarke for setting a reachable target with his declaration, and kudos to England for going for it.

Of course Mr Knowsnothingabouttestcricket is spouting his usual rubbish, and I see he's brought a friend along this time.

Let me ask them a question; though neither of them will answer it:

If someone involved in one or both camps had taken advantage of the bookies odds for a draw; why did both teams put so much effort into trying to get a result?

Granted on yesterday, but how often do we have brilliant playing conditions at 8am and the light meter is coming out late afternoon with an hour or so lost to poor light.

[7by7]

Tigerfish, your conspiracy theories are just that, ridiculous conspiracy theories.

They are not worth any further comment.

However

and for your info, although i will let you off, even though i have posted it before. but you obviously haven't read the post properly

i am the grandson and the son of of a Yorkshireman and Yorkshire lass.

So despite having a Yorkshire grandparent and a Yorkshire father and a Yorkshire mother you yourself aren't a Yorkshireman?

How odd.

[theblether]

There used to be a time the idea of betting influencing matches could be denigrated. Not now, and quite frankly never again. That's the damage that Cronje inflicted and others have inflicted writ large.

However I'm not going for the bookies angle on this one, I'm still going for the made for TV angle. Why Clarke would give the English even a sniff of victory is beyond me, he should have batted the match to death and killed it. No one would have blamed him for doing that.

A lot of you see cricket as being the winner due to a brave declaration by Clarke, I see Clarke playing to the cameras. I can't think of many other Australian Captains that would have taken the risk of giving England a 4-0 series victory. In fact I can think of a good few that would have done anything to prevent that from happening.

So there's a question........genuine question, which other Australian Captain in the last 30 years would have declared on Monday and given England a chance under those circumstances in an Ashes test series?

.

Edited August 27, 2013 by theblether

[Chicog]

So there's a question........genuine question, which other Australian Captain in the last 30 years would have declared on Monday and given England a chance under those circumstances in an Ashes test series?

I don't see what the fuss is about. It was a risk-free exercise, an opportunity to try and win, knowing that if it went pear shaped he'd have the light to save his bacon.

That's why he was badgering the umpires for light in the end.

Had it come off, he would be hailed as the brave man, etc., but the truth is it was a calculated risk - go for the win, worst case scenario the draw everyone expected.

Had the light still been the batsmen's pregrogative as it used to be, you can bet you arse he would have batted it out.

[skyaslimit]

The Herald Sun claim several England players relieved themselves on the pitch as they celebrated their Ashes series victory

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/englands-ashes-heroes-caught-urinating-2224170#ixzz2d98nrc5z
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

[7by7]

Blether,
I have already given my theory on why Clarke declared a second time rather than blocking for a draw

Clarke, with or without discussion with Cook, decided to try and salvage a win in this series by making a game of it. Doubtless because he didn't want to be the first Aussie captain since 1977 to leave England without winning at least one test.

I am sure that most Australian captains, from Ponting all the way back to Gregory, would have at the very least considered doing the same in such a circumstance.

But perhaps your question is best answered by one or more of our Aussie colleagues.

What is clear is that when it reached the point where Clarke could see his gamble wasn't going to pay off, he slowed the game right down in the hope that the light would intervene before England had reached the target; which it did.

I am not blaming him for that; events have shown that Cook would have done exactly the same in that position; indeed, though I can't find it now, I'm sure I read somewhere yesterday (Monday) that Cook has acknowledged such.

[Chicog]

The Herald Sun claim several England players relieved themselves on the pitch as they celebrated their Ashes series victory

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/englands-ashes-heroes-caught-urinating-2224170#ixzz2d98nrc5z

Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Yes, some scumbag grass of an Aussie reporter trying to stir up trouble.

Fortunately the British public will see it for what it was: The victors having a post match piss-up and having the occasional slash nearby rather than stumbling alway the way back to the pavilion.

Really this is just straw-clutching to try and make the convicts feel better about themselves.

Pathetic really.

[BookMan]

The Herald Sun claim several England players relieved themselves on the pitch as they celebrated their Ashes series victory

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/englands-ashes-heroes-caught-urinating-2224170#ixzz2d98nrc5z

Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Yes, some scumbag grass of an Aussie reporter trying to stir up trouble.

Fortunately the British public will see it for what it was: The victors having a post match piss-up and having the occasional slash nearby rather than stumbling alway the way back to the pavilion.

Really this is just straw-clutching to try and make the convicts feel better about themselves.

Pathetic really.

Oh Chicog!

The English win and yet you are still bitter?

Have yourself a few beers, trundle on down to your local Cricket pitch, and let loose some steam. You will feel so much better

[Chicog]

No one likes a grass, Bookman. What goes on tour stays on tour. I'd imagine the Aussie players won't be too impressed either.

[BookMan]

No one likes a grass, Bookman. What goes on tour stays on tour. I'd imagine the Aussie players won't be too impressed either.

I agree. Warner wouldn't have been after the English players dobbed him in for giving Joe Root a friendly tickle.

Edited August 27, 2013 by BookMan

[Basil B]

Put it in a nutshell, Clarke was desperate to go home with with something, 3-1 looks a lot better than 3-0, the only chance Clarke had was to bowl England out, he needed a carrot that would tempt the England bowlers to take chances.

Unfortunately England played too safe and did not get enough runs before bad light, what England failed to do was was anticipate the bad light decision, when Pietersen fell Cook should have got all the remaining bowler padded up and sent them on to get as many sixes at any cost, it was stupid we played too conservatively and ended up with five players left to bowl.

[7by7]

Agree with your first paragraph, Basil; but not your second.

Remember that this was a test match, not an ODI; no fielding or bowling restrictions.

England did the right thing; get established, take the shine and hardness off the ball and then go for it.

Which is what they did.

BTW, when you say 'bowlers' in your post I assume you mean 'batters.'

[Chicog]

No one likes a grass, Bookman. What goes on tour stays on tour. I'd imagine the Aussie players won't be too impressed either.

I agree. Warner wouldn't have been after the English players dobbed him in for giving Joe Root a friendly tickle.

Except they didn't. I'm sure if it hadn't happened in a public nightclub full of hangers on, it would probably have had a different resolution....