Ashes 2011

TrueDub

JustinDee wrote: »

Ffs talk about mountains out of molehills.

If the Aussies put up a better fight, we would be talking about that, and Ponting wouldn't have spat his dummy.

JustinDee wrote: »

He won't be banned. Nobody has been shunted out for that kind of behaviour before. Not even (Chris) Broad, Miandad, Gatting, Singh, Botham or Michael Holding despite their own notable incidents being as bad as if not worse, were suspended.

No defence whatsover, just because X did it doesn't make it right.

JustinDee wrote: »

And since we're all in puritanical-mode, should Strauss have been reprimanded for his behaviour on two occasions following bad light stoppages?

Not puritanism at all, simply a desire for respect for officials and the norms of the game, as well as civilised behaviour. I'm not familiar with the details of Strauss' issue, but if it was the same, then yes he should have been.

Moist Bread

TrueDub wrote: »

If the Aussies put up a better fight, we would be talking about that, and Ponting wouldn't have spat his dummy.

You're just speculating here.

No defence whatsover, just because X did it doesn't make it right.

Sure - but he isn't banned. The ICC have dealt with this in the manner they see fit.

Not puritanism at all, simply a desire for respect for officials and the norms of the game, as well as civilised behaviour. I'm not familiar with the details of Strauss' issue, but if it was the same, then yes he should have been.

I really do feel you are making more out of this than there really is. I'm not sure Pontings behaviour was uncivilised, a bit rash and slightly stupid, perhaps, but a fine seems fair enough to me.

TrueDub

Moist Bread wrote: »

You're just speculating here.

That's the essence of a discussion board!

Moist Bread wrote: »

Sure - but he isn't banned. The ICC have dealt with this in the manner they see fit.

I really do feel you are making more out of this than there really is. I'm not sure Pontings behaviour was uncivilised, a bit rash and slightly stupid, perhaps, but a fine seems fair enough to me.

Fair enough. It's a subject that interests me, but I appeciate that not everyone feels the same way.

JustinDee

TrueDub wrote: »

No defence whatsover, just because X did it doesn't make it right

I didn't say they made it right or wrong. Disciplinary guidelines even in sport are based on precedents as well as a lawbook.
None of the hotheads I listed has been banned for dissent with umpires following incidents.

SharpshooterTom

harpsman wrote: »

Aussies showin what sore losers they are again-ponting should be suspended for last test-total disgrace.

Yes because of course the English are such graceful losers themeselves when it comes to sports. :rolleyes:

So what's the plan anyway then England to bat till tea and get a 500+ lead or put them in before lunch?

Mothman

I think England will bat until all out and that may well be about lunch. So often a partnership gets broken early the following morning and the tail could fold quick enough. But another 100 runs, a lead of 450, England won't need to bat again despite the good batting conditions. On an aging pitch I feel Tremlett and Swan will always be a danger.

HonalD

JustinDee wrote: »

I didn't say they made it right or wrong. Disciplinary guidelines even in sport are based on precedents as well as a lawbook.
None of the hotheads I listed has been banned for dissent with umpires following incidents.

This discussion is interesting. Does the referral system make things worse? Was it the catalyst for Ponting going off on one? If there was only an appeal from Haddin and Peteresen was given not out, would the same thing happen...I don't think so.

I think the referral system sucks - bad luck, mistakes, poor eyesight are all part of the game IMO

Beasty

Interesting comments from the Sky commentary team today. Apparently Pietersen told Ponting he had nicked it just to wind him up (which clearly worked!) - I guess it's could be considered the batsman's version of sledging

Anyway, England all out for 513 before lunch. The fact the Aussies managed to take 5 wickets in a session is encouraging, as it suggests there is still something in the wicket for the bowlers.

Gordon Gecko

England have wrapped up the Ashes, more or less, and can really afford to field whatever kind of team for the 5th test. The burning question though: will they have the stones to drop Paul Collingwood whose form has been woeful for many months now and give the likes of Eoin Morgan a chance?

KevIRL

Interesting comments from Warney in the commentary box about tactics, shows the typical Aussie go for it attitude

booth70

Gordon Gecko wrote: »

England have wrapped up the Ashes, more or less, and can really afford to field whatever kind of team for the 5th test. The burning question though: will they have the stones to drop Paul Collingwood whose form has been woeful for many months now and give the likes of Eoin Morgan a chance?

The answer is no......With England having retained the Ashes Brigadier Block will be given another chance at Sydney to salvage his test career

SharpshooterTom

It's a failure because they didn't win the Ashes but if Australia could pull this series to 2-2, it would take the gloss of a team that's supposedly chasing no.1 in the world. It would effectively mean they didn't lose the series and some pride restored. So something to play for maybe.:P

booth70

That innings of 20 off 73 balls was just about the worst innings that I have seen Ponting play in the last decade or so

This guy is both physically and mentally shot and needs to go away,clear his head and come back next year as a lower middle order batsman......he is still too good a player for this to be his last ever test series

I doubt whether he will resign as captain....with the World cup just around the corner he might decide to carry on as skipper bcos he will consider winning the world cup as some sort of redemption

Here's hoping Australia don't go down the same road as the West Indies have after dominating world cricket for so long

Dozen Wicked Words

Gnobe wrote: »

It's a failure because they didn't win the Ashes but if Australia could pull this series to 2-2, it would take the gloss of a team that's supposedly chasing no.1 in the world. It would effectively mean they didn't lose the series and some pride restored. So something to play for maybe.:P

Don't think too many Aussies will be flocking to the last test, drawing the series would be the definitive "hollow" victory. Only Siddle and Hussey will come out of this series with any credit for the Aussies IMHO.

Would love to see Morgan picked for the last test, Collingwood offers nothing bar the odd bit of good fielding. Time for new blood, better to change a poor player in a good team than wait until the team is floundering.

JustinDee

dooferoaks wrote: »

Don't think too many Aussies will be flocking to the last test, drawing the series would be the definitive "hollow" victory

It will be packed for first two days at least. Always is. Regardless of context of the test.

d'Oracle

dooferoaks wrote: »

Would love to see Morgan picked for the last test, Collingwood offers nothing bar some of the best fielding in the world. Time for new blood, better to change a poor player in a good team than wait until the team is floundering.

Fyp.

Not that I agree with what you are saying.
He is a solid batsman who has won tests and odis for England almost single handedly this year.

"A bit of poor form does not a bad player make" - Me.

Beasty

To be honest, Morgan would be on a hiding to nothing if he was picked for the final test. The other batsmen have set high standards, and if he failed he may have to wait for another chance. This time last year everyone was saying Bell should make way for Morgan, and he has come back strongly

The other problem for Morgan is he would have to get into a Test match frame of mind for one match, and then switch back to a ODI mentality immediately

I think the best course of action is to bring him in for the ODIs and World Cup, and try and find a place for him in the Test team (probably Colingwood's, as everyone else has been in such good form) over the summer

d'Oracle

Beasty wrote: »

I think the best course of action is to bring him in for the ODIs and World Cup, and try and find a place for him in the Test team (probably Colingwood's, as everyone else has been in such good form) over the summer

Or Bells, provided he goes a bit crap again....

dfx-

booth70 wrote: »

Here's hoping Australia don't go down the same road as the West Indies have after dominating world cricket for so long

I hope so as they've gone down the same road as that West Indies side in the mid 90s. As Courtney Walsh said himself about Lara or Ambrose or Walsh, they expected another Waugh or McGrath to be there afterwards rather than pick him in the strongest team.

So tough luck.

mike65

Australia 174-7

John mac

Cobalt-blue skies above the MCG, not a wisp of cloud in sight. I look out of my window and I see the blinking lights of a photocopier on the blink......:D

Beasty

258-8, and with Harris missing (he underwent an operation for a stress fractured tibia), the last man is in

Beasty

Job Done:D

kryogen

well done England, serious questions to be answered in the Aussie camp. Not just Ponting, Clarke, the best place to deploy Watson, Hauritz, how much the messing around with spinners cost the team, the selection policy, i could go on!

Hopefully they can draw the series at least and save a little face, although it would probably be better in the long run if they are beaten badly

Ponting is gone to hospital for an xray which could prove a useful excuse if he is missing for the Sydney test

dfx-

Two innings defeats out of four...ouch.

Great to watch Siddle batting though. Nearly as many runs as Ponting in the series

Neil3030

Lots of happy South Africans being interviewed on Sky Sports...

I take it England won?

:P

mike65

Nice to see the Aussies stay to give England a sporting round of applause

Inquitus

JustinDee

Real classy post there.

Inquitus

JustinDee wrote: »

Real classy post there.

Its crass but it made me chuckle.

I actually felt sorry for Punter when sky interviewed him last night. He came across very well in tough circumstances.

JustinDee

Inquitus wrote: »

I actually felt sorry for Punter when sky interviewed him last night. He came across very well in tough circumstances.

He might lose the captaincy but he'll be around for a while yet.
Aussie CWC side will be more than handy with the additions of Cam White, Shaun Tait and Brett Lee amongst the ranks as well some of the new blood knocking on the door. Pity about Harris' injury though.

kryogen

The One Day squad is quite strong and I hope Punter is there to lead them in the CWC

SharpshooterTom

I thought Clarke was the one-day captain?

booth70

Ponting ruled out through injury......probably the best decision Australia have made all summer given the Ashes is gone and the World Cup is just around the corner.

I have a feeling Ponting will finish his test career next summer against his most favourite player and team.....Harbhajan Singh and India!;)

JustinDee

Gnobe wrote: »

I thought Clarke was the one-day captain?

Cameron White.

booth70

Katich rules himself out of Sydney test.....

Atleast it gives Hughes another chance....which I think he deserves given that he was prematurely dropped from the test side after a couple of failures in the last Ashes series in England...somebody who made a hundred in each innings against Steyn and co must have some potential and Australia need to stick with him given Katich isn't getting any younger himself

kryogen

Clarke is the T20 captain, Ponting will be captain in the CWC if he is involved

JustinDee

kryogen wrote: »

Clarke is the T20 captain, Ponting will be captain in the CWC if he is involved

Dont know why but I mistook that post about the asst captain role.

NWPat

Neil3030 wrote: »

Lots of happy South Africans being interviewed on Sky Sports...

I take it England won?

:P

:eek:Not to mention Ponting's Pakistan born replacement or the fact that there are no native Australians in their squad.

JustinDee

NWPat wrote: »

:eek:Not to mention Ponting's Pakistan born replacement or the fact that there are no native Australians in their squad.

Khawaja, like Andrew Symonds and Brendan Julian, has lived in Australia since he was a nipper and is also a product of the Australian Cricket Academy system.

He has been in Australia for a greater part of his life than Matt Prior and Andrew Strauss have been in England for example.
Khawaja didn't just arrive in the last shower unlike Trott, Pietersen, Morgan or even Kieswetter and Lumb.
If he's not an Aussie then Spike Milligan was an Indian.

The list of English blow-ins is pretty long indeed. As far as Aussie goes, I can think of Kepler Wessels and thats about it.

As far as "native Australians" in the England squad goes, one word: Kolpak.

NWPat

You missed the point, I did not say he was not Australian, But he is no more Australian than Trott is English. He is certainly not native Australian(Aboriginy) and nor are any of the Australian team.

JustinDee

NWPat wrote: »

You missed the point, I did not say he was not Australian, But he is no more Australian than Trott is English. He is certainly not native Australian(Aboriginy) and nor are any of the Australian team.

The above is complete and utter tosh.
Of course he is. He was brought up in Australia as an Australian. So what if he was born outside the country???
Jonathan Trott is in England since what, his early 20s now? He played underage for South Africa ffs.
As for the number of Aboriginal players, whats your point exactly?? No-one is a real Ocker unless they're descended from the likes of the Koori or Murri tribes?
I suggest you save that rubbish for the politics & history forums or the John Pilger fan club.

NWPat

That is your opinion, which to me is worthless, so we now use a stopwatch to determine someones right to represent a country at sport, what nonsense.

And for your information(you need it) here are few more foreign born players to wear the baggy green:
From ENGLAND (10): Charles Bannerman, John Hodges, Tom Kendall, William Midwinter, Percy McDonnell, William Cooper, Henry Musgrove, Hanson Carter, Tony Dell and Andrew Symonds.
SCOTLAND (1): Archie Jackson.
IRELAND (2): Tom Horan, Tom Kelly.
SOUTH AFRICA (1): Kepler Wessels.
NEW ZEALAND (3): Tom Groube, Clarrie Grimmett and Brendon Julian.
INDIA (2): Bransby Cooper and Rex Sellers.
SRI LANKA (1): Dav Whatmore.

England have had more but the point is, its not unique, so what is the point?

The reasons are many, but the main reason is, that apart from established test players, England has been the only country with a large professional set up where a good living can be made from the game. This has attracted large numbers of "foreign" players some of whom have ended up playing for England. Political reasons also come in to it, Basil D'Oliveira played for England because his colour meant he could not play for South Africa, Trott and Pieterson were dealt a difficult hand due to South Africas racial quota policy.
Would you rather these players were never seen fulfilling their potential?

TrueDub

Posting as mod: Lads, let's keep this civil please.

Posting as me: Pat, you seem to be saying that it's wrong for Oz to have players from outside the country, but not wrong for England. Could you explain this please?

NWPat

Where do I say that? There are rules laid down by ICC that govern this and as long as they are not broken I have no problem. My point is England are not the only team to use "foreign" born players. There is only one poster being abusive and its not me.

JustinDee

NWPat wrote: »

Where do I say that? There are rules laid down by ICC that govern this and as long as they are not broken I have no problem. My point is England are not the only team to use "foreign" born players. There is only one poster being abusive and its not me.

There is a very big difference between being raised in a country since a child then playing for them having gone through the system towards senior choice and ... arriving in a country to play for them.

Your there's a difference between a native player and an Aboriginal player is way off as was comparing Khawaja to Trott. Then to try and justify Trott's selection by saying it was because of the quota system in South Africa (a country he'd already represented below senior level) too?
I don't mind that they play for England. Its a valid point that England has to look elsewhere for its players though and worth a laugh, given that it runs the largest professional league in the sport. Remember Michael Atherton putting Ireland as "Ireland" in 2007? Thats the same as England's case as he has now admitted.
It is not the same as a kid whose family moved there when he was very young and brought him up as an Aussie.

JustinDee

TrueDub wrote: »

Posting as me: Pat, you seem to be saying that it's wrong for Oz to have players from outside the country, but not wrong for England. Could you explain this please?

What they are getting mixed up with is the difference between being a player who was born overseas and being an overseas player declaring for another country.

NWPat

JustinDee wrote: »

What they are getting mixed up with is the difference between being a player who was born overseas and being an overseas player declaring for another country.

Oh, I see, you mean like dirk nannes:rolleyes:

JustinDee

NWPat wrote: »

Oh, I see, you mean like dirk nannes:rolleyes:

Thats between him and the Netherlands where he was an overseas player.
He's Aussie born and bred.

NWPat

JustinDee wrote: »

What they are getting mixed up with is the difference between being a player who was born overseas and being an overseas player declaring for another country.

You, I fear, are the one who is mixed up, perhaps it is the pain of the latest drubbing making you dizzy. Trott did indeed play in the Under-15 and Under-19 World Cups for South Africa but was a British passport holder and therefore not an overseas player, making his first team debut for Warwickshire in 2003.