Interesting reading some excerpts from Duncan Fletcher's upcoming book on the Ashes. In today's excerpt he defends himself strongly over the controversy caused by England's alleged tactic of subbing and resting their bowlers for several minutes at the time.
What I thought was noteworthy wasn't so much Fletcher's predictable defence of that issue but his gamesmanship accusations the Australians allegedly employed during the Ashes that he felt made their accusations on the sub issue particularly hollow. He cites 5 examples:
First, amid all this talk of substitutes, what about the Old Trafford Test when Michael Clarke had his back problems? When he appeared to bat in the second innings, did he have a runner? No. Did he suddenly recover that morning then? Where was he when we were smashing it around the park the day before? I also noticed that Brad Hodge was on as a substitute fielder for him; that was strange when the Australians were also talking about it being traditional to use a bowler for 12th-man duties. Why was Mike Kasprowicz or Shaun Tait not on the field? It should be remembered that Hodge took two excellent catches, one at deep squareleg in the first innings to dismiss Pietersen and the other at fine leg to end Vaughan's second innings.
Second - and this is the most serious example - whenever a decision went against Australia during the series, did you notice how Ponting would invariably walk straight up to the umpire and challenge his decision using overbearing body language? On occasions, just like in football, he was supported by Adam Gilchrist. Sometimes there was even a third person involved. Is that really what we want kids to see when they watch cricket? Is that in the spirit of the game? Did you ever see Vaughan or any of the England players challenge the umpire in that manner during the series?
Third, what about Gilchrist saying loudly so the umpire could hear "We're owed one dodgy decision here, boys" in the second innings at Trent Bridge? That was reported by Simon Hughes and was no doubt unearthed during his work as the analyst in the Channel 4 van. Is it in the spirit of the game to be saying things like that?
Fourth, what about one of the Australians deliberately bowling on a pre-cut strip before the start of play on one of the match days of the Trent Bridge Test? It was clearly a strip being readied for a Nottinghamshire match, while another one had been clearly designated on the edge of the square for bowlers to practise on: that is the norm at all Test grounds. This petulant behaviour was no doubt the upshot of comments made by the groundsman before the Test, to which some of the Australians had taken exception. We also had it on good authority that the groundsman was verbally abused by some of those same Australian players.
Fifth - and this is nearly as important as the second instance - going back to the second Test at Edgbaston, was it in the spirit of the game to try to ensure that an opposition player was fined? Simon Jones was fined 20% of his match fee after pointing Matthew Hayden to the pavilion after he had him caught at slip by Trescothick for 31. But soon after that incident had occurred, when the fourth umpire came through the dressing rooms from the field after a drinks break, there were Australian players bringing it to his attention. "Make sure that you report it to the match referee" was what they were suggesting.
The Clarke issue arguably does have some merit although the fact that he had to bat at seven meant Australia were affected by his absence from the field.
The second issue on confronting the umpire is valid as I strongly dislike this recent trend of talking to the umpire after a decision has been made, especially if it's the captain. Hopefully the ICC clamp down on this before it gets out of hand.
The third issue over Gilly is a bit of storm in a teacup I suspect and overdramtised I suspect, although that Gilly did say it shows the persecution complex about not getting the 'rub of the green' that Australia was feeling during the series.
The 4th over the pitch is a nothing issue. The groundsman was a fool for making such remarks before a game (and was proven wrong anyway) and it was understandable that some of the team would be agitated with him.
The 5th issue is an interesting one as it goes against the ethos of what the Australian side is usually about - namely 'what happens on the field stays on the field'.
So do others think Fletcher has some valid points or just all nonsense?
What I thought was noteworthy wasn't so much Fletcher's predictable defence of that issue but his gamesmanship accusations the Australians allegedly employed during the Ashes that he felt made their accusations on the sub issue particularly hollow. He cites 5 examples:
First, amid all this talk of substitutes, what about the Old Trafford Test when Michael Clarke had his back problems? When he appeared to bat in the second innings, did he have a runner? No. Did he suddenly recover that morning then? Where was he when we were smashing it around the park the day before? I also noticed that Brad Hodge was on as a substitute fielder for him; that was strange when the Australians were also talking about it being traditional to use a bowler for 12th-man duties. Why was Mike Kasprowicz or Shaun Tait not on the field? It should be remembered that Hodge took two excellent catches, one at deep squareleg in the first innings to dismiss Pietersen and the other at fine leg to end Vaughan's second innings.
Second - and this is the most serious example - whenever a decision went against Australia during the series, did you notice how Ponting would invariably walk straight up to the umpire and challenge his decision using overbearing body language? On occasions, just like in football, he was supported by Adam Gilchrist. Sometimes there was even a third person involved. Is that really what we want kids to see when they watch cricket? Is that in the spirit of the game? Did you ever see Vaughan or any of the England players challenge the umpire in that manner during the series?
Third, what about Gilchrist saying loudly so the umpire could hear "We're owed one dodgy decision here, boys" in the second innings at Trent Bridge? That was reported by Simon Hughes and was no doubt unearthed during his work as the analyst in the Channel 4 van. Is it in the spirit of the game to be saying things like that?
Fourth, what about one of the Australians deliberately bowling on a pre-cut strip before the start of play on one of the match days of the Trent Bridge Test? It was clearly a strip being readied for a Nottinghamshire match, while another one had been clearly designated on the edge of the square for bowlers to practise on: that is the norm at all Test grounds. This petulant behaviour was no doubt the upshot of comments made by the groundsman before the Test, to which some of the Australians had taken exception. We also had it on good authority that the groundsman was verbally abused by some of those same Australian players.
Fifth - and this is nearly as important as the second instance - going back to the second Test at Edgbaston, was it in the spirit of the game to try to ensure that an opposition player was fined? Simon Jones was fined 20% of his match fee after pointing Matthew Hayden to the pavilion after he had him caught at slip by Trescothick for 31. But soon after that incident had occurred, when the fourth umpire came through the dressing rooms from the field after a drinks break, there were Australian players bringing it to his attention. "Make sure that you report it to the match referee" was what they were suggesting.
The Clarke issue arguably does have some merit although the fact that he had to bat at seven meant Australia were affected by his absence from the field.
The second issue on confronting the umpire is valid as I strongly dislike this recent trend of talking to the umpire after a decision has been made, especially if it's the captain. Hopefully the ICC clamp down on this before it gets out of hand.
The third issue over Gilly is a bit of storm in a teacup I suspect and overdramtised I suspect, although that Gilly did say it shows the persecution complex about not getting the 'rub of the green' that Australia was feeling during the series.
The 4th over the pitch is a nothing issue. The groundsman was a fool for making such remarks before a game (and was proven wrong anyway) and it was understandable that some of the team would be agitated with him.
The 5th issue is an interesting one as it goes against the ethos of what the Australian side is usually about - namely 'what happens on the field stays on the field'.
So do others think Fletcher has some valid points or just all nonsense?
