***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[Isolator]

From http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article306379.ece :

Before Stephen Harmison started the final over Stuart MacGill rushed out to tell Glenn McGrath to bat a metre out of his crease to reduce the chances of him being given out lbw. What MacGill forgot to tell the fast bowler - why are we always portrayed as being dumb? - was to get back in your crease once the ball had been bowled.
McGrath lurched forward to smother the second ball of Harmison's over but missed it, and Geraint Jones, the wicketkeeper, threw the ball to Matthew Hoggard, who was standing next to the stumps. Thankfully - it would have been a totally immoral way to win a match of this stature - Hoggard chose not to break the stumps, but this did not prevent MacGill feeling that he had almost cost his team a Test match.

WHAAT?? When the heck did that happen? I didn't see that at all!

 

[Scaly piscine]

From http://sport.independent.co.uk/cricket/article306379.ece :


WHAAT?? When the heck did that happen? I didn't see that at all!

Not sure it being "totally immoral", unless there was a decent delay, it would be something like if Harmison had hit the stumps instead of just missing them with a throw while Warne stood there like an idiot and watched a while ago.

 

[Majin]

Who gives a **** how moral it is or not? It would have served him right for standing a metre out of his crease and taking the LBW dismissal out of play anyway. If that actually happened, Hoggard is an idiot.

 

[luckyeddie]

Who gives a **** how moral it is or not? It would have served him right for standing a metre out of his crease and taking the LBW dismissal out of play anyway. If that actually happened, Hoggard is an idiot.

I cannot believe a true cricket fan would believe that - I give a (expletive deleted) how moral it is for a start - and so do most true cricket supporters. This game still has some standards in this country. If we allow those standards to drop, what do we become?

Nothing but New Zealanders.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah they were reasonably aggressive shots. But they weren't Gilchrist-aggressive. Big difference.

Seriously, Benaud has pointed it out many times that Gilchrist, when the team is in trouble or he's struggling for runs, plays a 'short-arm' style where he does more pushes and doesn't loft the ball but then when he gets his eye in, the shots with the full-swing through the line come into it and he scores quickly. I've barely seen him get out of 'short-arm' mode all series. I think he'll get a big ton once he frees his arms a bit. The thing is, England would have to give him a bit of a chance first and they are bowling too well for that right now!

for me gilchrist has definetly been trying to play more conservatively during this series, mostly because on the occasions hes tried to play his strokes in the ODIs and at Lords, hes ended up making a complete mess of it and got out to flintoff. its quite clear, that hes been playing a lot fewer shots when hes come in particular to that ball outside the off stump, but it remains to be seen whether this is going to be more successful this series or not.

 

[Isolator]

I cannot believe a true cricket fan would believe that - I give a (expletive deleted) how moral it is for a start - and so do most true cricket supporters. This game still has some standards in this country. If we allow those standards to drop, what do we become?

Nothing but New Zealanders.

No but when did this incident take place? I watched every single ball and I didn't see anything with Hoggard and a run-out.

????????????

 

[Isolator]

And I've just had a look at the Cricinfo ball-by-ball commentary and it doesn't mention anything like that either.

 

[marc71178]

When the going gets tough JONES gets going (off the field)

Come on, that's a bit unfair - he looked genuinely distressed to be going off.

As it is, I actually said I wanted to see Harmison given a chance the moment before he went off, but didn't want it in that manner.

 

[Isolator]

I cannot believe a true cricket fan would believe that - I give a (expletive deleted) how moral it is for a start - and so do most true cricket supporters. This game still has some standards in this country. If we allow those standards to drop, what do we become?

Nothing but New Zealanders.

There'd be nothing immoral about it at all - IF SUCH A SITUATION HAD EVER HAPPENED, WHICH IT DOESN"T SEEM TO HAVE DONE.

But, yeah, if such a situation had occurred, what would be immoral about that? You going to start saying that run-outs are immoral now? And then perhaps we can do the same for LBW, caught out, and bowled.

 

[Majin]

I cannot believe a true cricket fan would believe that - I give a (expletive deleted) how moral it is for a start - and so do most true cricket supporters. This game still has some standards in this country. If we allow those standards to drop, what do we become?

Nothing but New Zealanders.

Reverse the situation, Hoggard and Jones are trying to save the match for england in the Last over, Brett Lee comes steaming in, Hoggard is a metre out of his crease and the ball flies through to Gilchrist, who proceeds to throw to the man at the stumps, McGrath. Do you think Glenn D would stand there and say "Here, Hoggy old chap, get back behind the line and ready to face the next ball."? I seriously doubt that. What's happened to this so called killer instinct that our teams are supposed to possess today? As I already said, if McGrath wanted to stand so far out of the crease to stop the LBW coming into play, it should have been just as acceptable to stump him out. Not only do I not see how morals should come into that decision, I don't see how it's immoral in the first place.

And leave the New Zealanders out of it. They can't help it. B)

 

[marc71178]

I don't remember the run out thing either, but if he wants to take guard that far out of his crease then there's nothing wrong in running him out.

 

[PY]

No but when did this incident take place? I watched every single ball and I didn't see anything with Hoggard and a run-out.

????????????

I saw it but I didn't think he was out his crease at the time.

It was when he was fielding close with a helmet on right at the end.

 

[tooextracool]

Come on, that's a bit unfair - he looked genuinely distressed to be going off.

As it is, I actually said I wanted to see Harmison given a chance the moment before he went off, but didn't want it in that manner.

actually it should have been the other way around. harmison should have been bowling for all the while that jones was bowling, and jones should have come on when harmison did. vaughan got the timing all wrong and in the end jones got injured just as the ball started to reverse and when brett lee, who hes caused problems to in the series, just came in.

 

[luckyeddie]

And I've just had a look at the Cricinfo ball-by-ball commentary and it doesn't mention anything like that either.

Easy - because no-one saw it and it's not important.

It may be complete and utter rubbish emanating from the Australian camp - yet another one of these famous 'smokescreens' where at the end of the day only the really stupid and gullible are taken in.

It may be that the 'incident' really did happen - or rather that it didn't, and the players decided not to make any kind of a song and dance about it because it would be seen in many eyes as 'not cricket' - and you know what, if the game had ended that way, it really would have been a poor show.

In my mind, as truly unsportsmanlike as running the non-striker out backing up.

 

[steds]

actually it should have been the other way around. harmison should have been bowling for all the while that jones was bowling, and jones should have come on when harmison did. vaughan got the timing all wrong and in the end jones got injured just as the ball started to reverse and when brett lee, who hes caused problems to in the series, just came in.

Easy to say that with hindsight

 

[luckyeddie]

There'd be nothing immoral about it at all - IF SUCH A SITUATION HAD EVER HAPPENED, WHICH IT DOESN"T SEEM TO HAVE DONE.

But, yeah, if such a situation had occurred, what would be immoral about that? You going to start saying that run-outs are immoral now? And then perhaps we can do the same for LBW, caught out, and bowled.

You watch your game, I'll watch mine.

As far as run-outs are concerned, they're fair game - but not if it's the non-striker backing up - at least without a warning.

I bet you'd have those bails off as quick as a flash, wouldn't you?

 

[Slow Love™]

Can somebody tell me why it would have been immoral for Hoggard to have knocked the stumps over? I'm very confused...

 

[Slow Love™]

You watch your game, I'll watch mine.

As far as run-outs are concerned, they're fair game - but not if it's the non-striker backing up - at least without a warning.

I bet you'd have those bails off as quick as a flash, wouldn't you?

Oh, maybe I have the source of the confusion here - was McGrath at the striker's end or the non-striker's end? I thought he was facing (hence the reason he was out of his crease in the first place, to minimize the LBW chances as he was advised by MacGill).

If he was at the non-striker's end, that WOULD be a different story, but I didn't think that was the case...

 

[PY]

I think Eddie is comparing the two situations, i.e. you don't run someone out backing up without giving them the warning and thus shouldn't run McGrath out without something similar.

 

[Isolator]

You watch your game, I'll watch mine.

As far as run-outs are concerned, they're fair game - but not if it's the non-striker backing up - at least without a warning.

I bet you'd have those bails off as quick as a flash, wouldn't you?

You're speaking of Mankading? If so, then yes, I would, absolutely. If it's in the laws, it's the batsman's business to know it, and if he doesn't too bad. I cannot see how anyone can label a perfectly legal, valid mode of dismissal as immoral.