Substitute fielders in tests

[greg]

I can't work out how an 8 minute break including a couple of minutes to get off and a couple to get back can provide any sort of rub down or warm up benefit.

Actually Australia have somewhat overplayed their hand by suggesting all sorts of things that the bowlers have been getting up to. If the point is simply to ensure that an extra quality fielder is on the field at all times, then frankly the bowlers being subbed don't need to be doing anything. Probably they go off, stand in front of the urinal, and if something comes out then all well and good

However it is equally true that that would be a lot of trouble gone to for little gain, seeing as it has arguably brought not one extra wicket all series. If they were that serious about trying to stop the odd single then they would work a bit harder on the noball problem!

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Strange how the strident views of DK Lillee have been absent from the media in the past week.

I don't really see how Lillee's case hurts Ponting's argument really. He did something which was within the rules but against the spirit of the game, and the rules were changed to outlaw it because of the complaints of the English captain Mike Brearley.

Sound familiar?

 

[luckyeddie]

I don't really see how Lillee's case hurts Ponting's argument really. He did something which was within the rules but against the spirit of the game, and the rules were changed to outlaw it because of the complaints of the English captain Mike Brearley.

Sound familiar?

Ponting seems to have made accusations that the English bowlers were going off for massages before a spell, warm-downs after a spell and heaven-knows-what. The England camp has denied that this is the case, and that the bowlers go off for reasons associated with the amount of fluids they take on board (I leave you to work that one out).

Short of actually having an ICC toilet attendant present in either dressing-room, I don't see how Ponting's accusations (which you seem very eager to back up to the hilt) can be substantiated.

 

[Dasa]

I think it was Boycott making a point in the last Test on how in most English grounds, the distance from dressing room/toilets is so great that players would hardly have time to get there and back in time without practically sprinting..given that, I can't see how anyone could credibly claim players are going back to have quick massages and whatnot...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ponting seems to have made accusations that the English bowlers were going off for massages before a spell, warm-downs after a spell and heaven-knows-what. The England camp has denied that this is the case, and that the bowlers go off for reasons associated with the amount of fluids they take on board (I leave you to work that one out).

Short of actually having an ICC toilet attendant present in either dressing-room, I don't see how Ponting's accusations (which you seem very eager to back up to the hilt) can be substantiated.

I don't think they can be at all. The only thing that can be done is the umpires can monitor the use of the subs, and if necessary deny them to those who go off too often. I think if you didn't get a sub for a toilet break you'd quickly see England's bowlers heading off about as often as everyone elses. And, for all the talk of "it's within the rules", the rules make it fairly clear that a sub is only to be used in the case of injury.

 

[age_master]

Indeed i would say that England get alot more advantage out of having a specialist fielder on than their bowlers resting - mainly because Englands bowlers arn't that good in the field - Australia has good fielders anyway with Warne at slip, Brett Lee and Glenn McGrath are both good fielders too.

 

[greg]

Indeed i would say that England get alot more advantage out of having a specialist fielder on than their bowlers resting - mainly because Englands bowlers arn't that good in the field - Australia has good fielders anyway with Warne at slip, Brett Lee and Glenn McGrath are both good fielders too.

Glenn McGrath is not a good fielder. Certainly no better than England's bowlers.

 

[age_master]

he is a solid firlder, certainly good in the context of fast bowlers, and certainly alot better than the English quicks.

 

[luckyeddie]

he is a solid firlder, certainly good in the context of fast bowlers, and certainly alot better than the English quicks.

So that's better bowlers, better batters, better wicket-keeper and better fielders.

Why are you losing?

(It can't ALL be Ricky's fault, can it?)

 

[pskov]

Indeed i would say that England get alot more advantage out of having a specialist fielder on than their bowlers resting - mainly because Englands bowlers arn't that good in the field - Australia has good fielders anyway with Warne at slip, Brett Lee and Glenn McGrath are both good fielders too.

I'd say Lee is the best fielding quick on either side, then Jones who is also decent. McGrath is pretty slow but has a good throw and makes few errors, Hoggard is adequate at best, Harmy is poor. Kaspa is however very terrible from what I've seen so far in the series, Gillespie not much better (perhaps more a confidence thing with him). Haven't seen enough of Tait yet.

 

[age_master]

Kaspa ain't that bad usually, i would say Gillespie is weaker, but he stacks up against Hoggard i reakon. McGrath has a great pair of hands these days as well.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Kasprowicz is a great fielder! He's quick on his feet, has a good throw, and he's actually one of the best outfield catches going around and almost never drops anything. Not sure what he's done this series to make himself look bad.

McGrath is a good outfielder and always has been, and Lee is good in most places you put him. Gillespie is poor, and Warne is only good in the slips.

England's fielding in the slips is definately better than Australia's recently, though.