RIP Douglas Jardine

[Yorkshire Blue]

I know he died 50 odd years ago, but he'll be spinning in his grave more than a Murali chuck.

Angelo Mathews hit a single out to midwicket and as it was only Graeme Swann, turned to come back for a second run despite the fact it was only ever a run and a half. Mathews then ran into Onions, the bowler, who was trying to get back to the stumps to be ready for the inevitable run out. Seeing he was never going to make his ground, Mathews just stopped. The ball went the other end to Prior who whipped the stumps out with Mathews about 15 yards short of his ground making no effort to get back in.

England's lily-livered captain, like an umpire facing a Shane Warne appeal, just succumbed to the pressure of Mathews refusing to walk (ie just standing there) and withdrew his appeal. Pathetic.

First up, Strauss should have been appealing for Mathews to be out obstructing the field. Secondly, he should have been complaining to the umpire about Mathews running on the wicket. Third, he should have stood his ground and made Mathews go.

Fortunately Mathews was out next over but I don't think this display of weakness puts Strauss in a good light, no matter how fawning the newspapers will be about his sportsmanship. He was weak and he was wrong. He should have displayed some guts and leadership like Collingwood did last year.

Strauss out.

ps England have made a right pig's ear of this game.

 

[SUFC Forever]

I know he died 50 odd years ago, but he'll be spinning in his grave more than a Murali chuck.

Angelo Mathews hit a single out to midwicket and as it was only Graeme Swann, turned to come back for a second run despite the fact it was only ever a run and a half. Mathews then ran into Onions, the bowler, who was trying to get back to the stumps to be ready for the inevitable run out. Seeing he was never going to make his ground, Mathews just stopped. The ball went the other end to Prior who whipped the stumps out with Mathews about 15 yards short of his ground making no effort to get back in.

England's lily-livered captain, like an umpire facing a Shane Warne appeal, just succumbed to the pressure of Mathews refusing to walk (ie just standing there) and withdrew his appeal. Pathetic.

First up, Strauss should have been appealing for Mathews to be out obstructing the field. Secondly, he should have been complaining to the umpire about Mathews running on the wicket. Third, he should have stood his ground and made Mathews go.

Fortunately Mathews was out next over but I don't think this display of weakness puts Strauss in a good light, no matter how fawning the newspapers will be about his sportsmanship. He was weak and he was wrong. He should have displayed some guts and leadership like Collingwood did last year.

Strauss out.

ps England have made a right pig's ear of this game.

Yeah, great skipper Collingwood isn't he? Grant Elliott of New Zealand is knocked off his feet in a one day international by Sidebottom, yet allowed to be run out while on the floor (through no fault of his own) and Collingwood did not even have the sporting decency to recall him and rescind the appeal.

If you think that is the correct way cricket (or any sport should be played) then you have a problem mate.

Strauss captained the side to an Ashes win only a few weeks ago yet you want him sacked? Your ignorance astounds me.

 

[A Century United]

Strauss out.

ps England have made a right pig's ear of this game.

:whistling:

 

[Swiss Tony]

A fantastic result,won in the true spirit of the game,lets leave the unsporting stuff to the colonials what.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Yes, I do think that is the way sport should be played. Hard and fair and to the letter of the law.

Batsman who misjudge singles shouldn't be allowed to escape being run out by running into fielders. I believe they should be given out obstructing the field in those circumstances. The fielder has to go after the ball (or to the stumps), they have no control over where they have to go, but other than avoiding raking up the pitch, the runner can choose his line to run. Batsmen who deliberately run so as to put themselves between the stumps and the ball should IMHO be given out obstructing the field. The fielder basically should have the right of way.

England were therefore morally entitled to uphold their appeal in both circumstances. The Elliott run-out was more marginal, but Mathews was clearcut. To withdraw it was weak. If a runner slips over, rather than takes out a fielder, should the fielding team still run him out?

Beating a poor Australian team shouldn't provide a sinecure for life and make him immune from criticism. Strauss was also captain for the humiliating defeat in the West Indies and for the humbling 6-1 defeat in the one-day series so he has substantial negatives to weigh up against the big positive of the Ashes win.

The spirit of the game stuff is largely ********. The 2005 Ashes was lauded for the spirit in which it was played, but did it not feature Warne at his intimidatory worst, imploring and pressuring umpires? Both sides sledged each other with impunity, I don't think a single batsman on either side walked, Ponting ranted at England's use of sub-fielders, Hayden having a go at the flag-bearers, Harmison's short-pitched stuff at Ponting, the Jones shoulder barge. All these things go contrary to the mythical spirit of the game, but that was one hell of a series because each team fought and didn't back down like Strauss did.

 

[Swiss Tony]

Yes, I do think that is the way sport should be played. Hard and fair and to the letter of the law.

Batsman who misjudge singles shouldn't be allowed to escape being run out by running into fielders. I believe they should be given out obstructing the field in those circumstances. The fielder has to go after the ball (or to the stumps), they have no control over where they have to go, but other than avoiding raking up the pitch, the runner can choose his line to run. Batsmen who deliberately run so as to put themselves between the stumps and the ball should IMHO be given out obstructing the field. The fielder basically should have the right of way.

England were therefore morally entitled to uphold their appeal in both circumstances. The Elliott run-out was more marginal, but Mathews was clearcut. To withdraw it was weak. If a runner slips over, rather than takes out a fielder, should the fielding team still run him out?

Beating a poor Australian team shouldn't provide a sinecure for life and make him immune from criticism. Strauss was also captain for the humiliating defeat in the West Indies and for the humbling 6-1 defeat in the one-day series so he has substantial negatives to weigh up against the big positive of the Ashes win.

The spirit of the game stuff is largely ********. The 2005 Ashes was lauded for the spirit in which it was played, but did it not feature Warne at his intimidatory worst, imploring and pressuring umpires? Both sides sledged each other with impunity, I don't think a single batsman on either side walked, Ponting ranted at England's use of sub-fielders, Hayden having a go at the flag-bearers, Harmison's short-pitched stuff at Ponting, the Jones shoulder barge. All these things go contrary to the mythical spirit of the game, but that was one hell of a series because each team fought and didn't back down like Strauss did.

Well put YB,but i don't agree the spirit of the game is paramount.

 

[SUFC Forever]

Yes, I do think that is the way sport should be played. Hard and fair and to the letter of the law.

Batsman who misjudge singles shouldn't be allowed to escape being run out by running into fielders. I believe they should be given out obstructing the field in those circumstances. The fielder has to go after the ball (or to the stumps), they have no control over where they have to go, but other than avoiding raking up the pitch, the runner can choose his line to run. Batsmen who deliberately run so as to put themselves between the stumps and the ball should IMHO be given out obstructing the field. The fielder basically should have the right of way.

England were therefore morally entitled to uphold their appeal in both circumstances. The Elliott run-out was more marginal, but Mathews was clearcut. To withdraw it was weak. If a runner slips over, rather than takes out a fielder, should the fielding team still run him out?

Beating a poor Australian team shouldn't provide a sinecure for life and make him immune from criticism. Strauss was also captain for the humiliating defeat in the West Indies and for the humbling 6-1 defeat in the one-day series so he has substantial negatives to weigh up against the big positive of the Ashes win.

The spirit of the game stuff is largely ********. The 2005 Ashes was lauded for the spirit in which it was played, but did it not feature Warne at his intimidatory worst, imploring and pressuring umpires? Both sides sledged each other with impunity, I don't think a single batsman on either side walked, Ponting ranted at England's use of sub-fielders, Hayden having a go at the flag-bearers, Harmison's short-pitched stuff at Ponting, the Jones shoulder barge. All these things go contrary to the mythical spirit of the game, but that was one hell of a series because each team fought and didn't back down like Strauss did.

Wiggy is correct - you are a clueless idiot.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Wiggy is correct - you are a clueless idiot.

Sorry mate while I don't really agree with the premise of YB's post, it was well thought out and argued and certainly not the product of someone who is clueless.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Interesting to see Strauss denied Smith a runner.

Andy Flower had some interesting comments to make after the Mathews incident when he basically said that he wouldn't have withdrawn the appeal, and I suspect that Flower has had a few words with his skipper and told him not to be so weak and to do what is right, not what looks sporting.

If Smith wants to take the moral high-ground I suggests he shuts up. I think his comments were a lot more unseemly, than Strauss' decision not to allow him a runner. He'd have been better advised to keep quiet and make the story about Strauss not allowing a runner, than about his comments on Strauss.

 

[number11]

Wiggy is correct - you are a clueless idiot.

Have you seen this incident regarding Matthews yet? I have to say when I first read about it I pictured something similar to the NZ incident last year when I think Colly was wrong to benefit from that. However, this was verydifferent in that;

Onions could barely have known Matthews was behind him, Matthews should have been looking and Matthews was never going to get in anyway and in effect tried to benefit from 'colliding' with a fielder to negate his poor running. Strictly speaking I dont think Strauss needed to recall the batsman.

That said, as we won anyway Im glad he did and it was about our performance and not a dubious wicket.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Interesting to see Strauss denied Smith a runner.

Andy Flower had some interesting comments to make after the Mathews incident when he basically said that he wouldn't have withdrawn the appeal, and I suspect that Flower has had a few words with his skipper and told him not to be so weak and to do what is right, not what looks sporting.

If Smith wants to take the moral high-ground I suggests he shuts up. I think his comments were a lot more unseemly, than Strauss' decision not to allow him a runner. He'd have been better advised to keep quiet and make the story about Strauss not allowing a runner, than about his comments on Strauss.

Apparently the umpires were also reluctant to allow Smith a runner. And listening to Bumble on Sky he was against allowing him a runner.

 

[The Big Shrimp]

If Smith wasn't so fat & unfit, it wouldn't be a problem! If your conditioning is poor, what do you expect?

If Smith wants to get all moral & say what goes around, comes around, I have one word to say to him. Pollocks!!!

 

[BrettieAngell]

It wasn't an injury, end of.

 

[The Big Shrimp]

It wasn't an injury, end of.

Yep & as a pro cricketer, he wasn't fit enough!!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Wow, sportsmanship comes to the fore yet again, in the third consecutive England game following the Angelo Mathews run out and Strauss refusing a runner for Greg "lack of conditioning" Smith.

Am only following this on cricinfo (at least until I get to the New Inn) but apparently Collingwood was Kallicharraned (wandered out of his crease thinking it was over, and was promptly run-out). Sounds as if the 3rd umpire gave him out but the Kiwis recalled him after discussions with Collingwood.

Those discussions might have been interesting as it was Collingwood who refused to withdraw a run-out appeal against the Kiwi's Saffer bits and pieces merchant, Grant Elliott. Vettori however let Colly stay. Subsequent replays suggest that this was the right decision as the hapless Daryl Harper (in the Sang Hue role) had called over.