| | |
| | |
| Welcome to the World-A-Team Cricket Forum. We promote friendly, good-natured, quality cricket discussion. |
| |||||||
| AUS Archived Threads 2005 Onwards. Austraia home forum. |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-09-2005, 08:32 AM
in reply to Zainub's post starting "I'm with Ponting on this one. The rules..." | ||||
| ||||
| Zaniub, How would you change them? 1. You could prevent players going off for an over, but what difference will it make to the game? Seems and irrelelant rule change to me - how often to one over subs make a huge difference to a game? 2. You could prevent anyone but the official no 12 fielding as sub, all that will happen is Home teams will take a squad of 13 and name a player like Pratt as 12th man.. what happens then if two players get injured? Having ten men fielding will decrease the standard of Test cricket. 3. You could make it so a sub has to have the same fielding ability as the player going off - then you would need several sub's of varying ability - ridiculous As pointed out by many the only people of think this is against the spirit of the game are the Aussies, and that's only cause they can't seem to realise that the reasonthey are 2-1 down is taht thyee have been outplayed... |
|
01-09-2005, 09:02 AM
in reply to flanflinger's post starting "Zaniub,
How would you change them?
..." | |||
| |||
| Flanflinger, The England players have been insisting they only leave the field to use the lavorty (which I think is a blatant lie). May I ask you then why Geriant Jones the wicket keeper never has so far never had need to leave the field for similar bathroom reasons. He isn't sick or something is he? And how come most of the players who need to go off the field are bowlers, or the captain him self, how come I've never seen a sub coming on for people like Ian Bell or Andrew Strauss - don't these guys ever have to leave for the bathroom ...oh yeah, I see, it's only Jones, Harmison, Flintoff, Giles and Vaughan that need to use the bathroom (read: quick change of shirt/shower/massage/ after a bowling spell) more often. Brilliant. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? It might make sense to 99.99% of England, but it's not neccessary it will to the rest of the world too. It would have been interesting to see if the roles in this whole substituion sage were reversed and Australia were playing at home using subs to drive the England batsmen crazy - I don't think I need any one to give me hints about how English fans would have reacted then. I know. I'd want the rules to be more strict. I'd like the umpires to be absolutely certain of why a player is leaving the field (I'd like him to make a writte record of that), and if he's leaving for the bathroom, I'd set a bathroom time limit - like if you go to the bathroom and don't back in next 3/4 minutes you can't bowl for the next half an hour. I'd also want the rules to legislate that only players in the squad announced before the match be allowed to used as substitues, I'd also argue setting a minimum 13 player limit for a test squad. If that makes England select a Jonty Rhodes as their 12th man, and a Collingwood at the 13th man...than that's alright. At least that way they'll be the offical 12th and 13th men, and not just any Tom, Dick or Harry who is just their for fun. I'd also try and legislate a time for annoucing the squad, ideally at least 24 hours before the test begins. This will ensure teams don't go overboard with selecting specialist fielders because they'd have to as a precautionary measure keep at least one proper batsmen/bowler in their side just in case anyone catches any last minute injuries like Glenn McGrath did. |
| |||
| let's be positive about the wonderful game. Last edited by Ernest : 02-09-2005 at 12:15 AM. Reason: Silly remark |
| ||||
| How can you prove you need to go to the toilet!! It's impossible... Teams have been doing this for years and the Aussie team is hardly whiter than white (http://www.world-a-team.com/showpost...25&postcount=1) It has only become an issue because Ponting has made it an issue, if he hadn't been run out we would probably never have heard about it.. |
| ||||
| Quote:
But anyway, I do doubt that they go off for that reason all the time anyway. I'm not sure why they go off but I don't think 7 mins means much anyway. |
|
01-09-2005, 09:27 AM
in reply to Trescothick's post starting "I was considering this point but then I..." | ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
so hear goes 1 to get up the stairs 1 to get undressed (I have seen Superman - so I know it can be done) 1 to shower and get a good massage 1 to get dry (they must use a hair dryer as they do get their hair dry very quickly) 1 to get their clothes on 1 to talk tactics and get second half of their massage 1 to get down the stairs ready for the next over It doesn't give them time to pop to the Loo.. that's proabably why they have to go off again at the end of their spell  Last edited by flanflinger : 01-09-2005 at 09:31 AM. |
| ||||
| They would'nt need to do it every trip if they go so often... And it only takes 5 seconds to change a shirt, then 5 to have a quick chat to the bowling coach or Fletcher. Or they could go off and have a 5min rub down on a specific point.
__________________ It's hard enough to remember my opinions, without remembering my reasons for them! Nietzsche |
| ||||
 Can a Kiwi be considered impartial here? I'm not sure, but I think this lads veiws are worth airing anyway:- http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectid=10343444
__________________ Still, a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest. |
| |||
| Quote:
|
| |||
| Quote:
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
