Ponting Scathing at England's use of substitutes.

[Seamer]

There was nothing wrong with what England have done IMO. I have wondered for years why all teams have not used this tactic. It is perfectly within the rules - this "spirit of cricket" nonsense is just that - nonsense. I have often wondered why Australia have named a useless fielder such as McGill as 12th man when they could have utilised a whiz like Andrew Symonds.
Rather than change the rules to disallow the use of such tactics, it should be encouraged as a legitimate tactic that all nations should use. Ponting is just ********** off that he did'nt utilise the tactic as well i think. Australia should make Symonds 12th man at the Oval if he does not make the 11.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Cliff-UK

the aussies get their twelfth man from their tour squad and one factor which helps a player get in the tour squad is they are a good fielder.

My point totally- when Clarke came off the field at OT, Hodge came on as he was the best fielder. There was no complaints from England when he fielded for alomoist the entire Test

Originally Posted by flanflinger 66813

When Clarke was injured - was Hodge the offical twelth man - I doubt it..

Surely the sensible approach will be that if Australia have a tour squad of 14 to pick from, then England can name their 12 plus two fielding substitues - in this case Pratt and Penny..

In this case Jones was in hospital so we brought on Gary Pratt. Where is the problem?

As Goaty has pointed out you have 8 mins to get back on the field - once you have headed up to the dressing room and got back, that does not leave a huge amount that can be done to get the fielder rested!!

[Paoli]

Fair points.

On your point about Hodge ff, Hodge is part of the touring squad; Pratt and Penny are nowhere near the England side. Hodge is there as a reward for his batting.

It could well be because we are losing; personally, I don't have any bones with it BUT it is contravening a little with the Spirit of the game.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Paoli69

On your point about Hodge ff, Hodge is part of the touring squad; Pratt and Penny are nowhere near the England side. Hodge is there as a reward for his batting.
.

True but we could easily name our best fielder - Collingwood in a squad of 14... and then use him.. but we don't as we realese him to play in domestic cricket...

[Cliff-UK]

Originally Posted by Seamer

I have often wondered why Australia have named a useless fielder such as McGill as 12th man when they could have utilised a whiz like Andrew Symonds. Ponting is just ********** off that he did'nt utilise the tactic as well i think. Australia should make Symonds 12th man at the Oval if he does not make the 11.

yep -frankly, cricket is a sport we hope is entertaining. I would have loved to have seen more of Symonds this year. He is a brilliant, exciting cricketer. And surely if any team can get a brilliant fielder on, they should. If Symonds ran out any of our boys as an aussie 12th man ion the 5th test, I would hope it is spectacular and awe-inspiring. I would not whinge.

[Notts Exile]

Originally Posted by Cliff-UK

If Symonds ran out any of our boys as an aussie 12th man ion the 5th test, I would hope it is spectacular and awe-inspiring. I would not whinge.

We'd just wonder why it's taken them so long to get him in there

[Cliff-UK]

I know - Symonds should have been their specialist 12th man. Why the heck not? well only cos they didn't think of it. The aussies have been ridiculously conservative - and conservatism often goes with being in the comfort zone and with arrogance.
Hussey should have been drafted in. And Gillespie was playing for us wasn't he? Until he got rumbled.

[flanflinger]

Wrong'Un has made a great point in his post on the International forum

http://www.world-a-team.com/showpost...0&postcount=10

Australia used Young Guys as a sub instead oof Brett Lee when they were at home.. Was that against the "Spirit of the Game"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2722,00.html

Originally Posted by The Australian

Indeed, Australia employed the practice during the previous home summer when it released 12th man Brett Lee to gain match practice and used young grade players as substitute fielders.

[Sean Beynon]

Absolutely right, this whole thing is utter nonsense. It has been happening for years. Ben Spendlove, who I mentioned somewhere earlier, took a couple of catches for England as a sub in about 1996 or so. Nobody complained then - he was a good fielder, his county was either not in action or he was not required.

None of this would have come out if Ponting had either got moving or if the ball had missed the stumps. Vaughan and Pieterson have already had direct-hit run-outs this series, so who is to say Ponting wouldn't have been run-out if Pratt wasn't on the field.

[Harmy's Army]

This "Spirit of the Game" jibing by Ponting is looking looks more anorexic than thin in the context of the charter signed up to by the Aussie players. Lets have a look at the key points.

It is against the spirit of the game to:

• Dispute umpires' decisions
• Use abusive language to an opponent or umpire
• Indulge in cheating or sharp practice, for example:
• Appealing when you know a batsman is not out
• Advancing towards an umpire aggressively when appealing
• Distracting an opponent verbally or by harassment

Captains and umpires set the example - every player is expected to contribute.

Now, while England may be accused of "sharp tactics" in the sub row - how many of the above (their own charter, remember) have Ponting and his men transgressed in recent times? Is the most blatant offender against a majority of the above infringements, Shane Keith Warne aka Roy Keane, exempt from the charter for some reason? Was the time wasting at OT during England's 2nd innings any lesser a "sharp practice" than the 12th man issue? Where is the dividing line between sledging and banter? No need to dwell on the abusive language issue as that has been plain for all to see. To my mind this "Spirit of Cricket" doctrine followed by Team Australia which Ponting keeps harping on about isn't worth the paper it's written on given their own behavior.

Ponting was disappointed Vaughan wouldn't agree to the "trusting catchers" clause he was trying to initiate way back at the start of the series. Then again, looking at the above and the faithlessness of the Aussie team to stick to parameters that they themselves determined, would there have been any point?

There have been few finer examples of "mental disintegration" in Ashes history than that suffered by Ricky at Nottingham. One possibility is that his hypocritical "holier than thou" crusade since the Pratt incident is purely a smokescreen to take the heat off an underperforming team; although sadly whatever the case it's made him look pretty silly in the process.