- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
What odds an Australian win? Should batsmen be offered the opportunity to play on in fading light? Were England’s time-wasting tactics against the spirit of cricket? Are England abusing field substitution rules?
What odds an Australian win?
The decision to terminate play prematurely yesterday all but eliminated one of three possible results in this Test.
Australia will surely declare overnight, content in the knowledge that its slow-scoring opponents are extremely unlikely to overhaul its lead of 331 runs in a maximum of 90 overs today.
England play with a “safety-first” mantra which, combined with the fact they need only a draw to retain the Ashes, should ensure their batting strategy will be based on survival not offence.
This would give Aussie skipper Michael Clarke the luxury of setting hyper-attacking fields in an effort to snare the 10 wickets Australia require to keep the series alive.
There were signs yesterday the Old Trafford pitch which had been so accommodating for the first three days was beginning to reveal its nasty underbelly.
Tim Bresnan got several deliveries to rear viciously from a length, leaving the Aussie batsman fending in protection of their throats and heads.
Meanwhile, Graeme Swann elicited extravagant turn and bounce from the same footholes Nathan Lyon will target relentlessly in the run-chase.
Considering the disheartening weather forecast, a draw remains the most probable result.
But should the weather not cause a severe truncation of play, Australia still have a robust chance of victory.
For that to occur, they must to make the most of the new ball and Lyon has to finally prove he can exploit a day five surface.
Was England’s time wasting against the spirit of cricket?
During the second session, England bowled just 22 overs in 105 minutes, despite spinner Graeme Swann delivering half of them.
It was the kind of woeful over rate more typically associated with the great West Indian sides of the 1980s which featured four quicks loping in from marathon-length run ups.
England constantly delayed play with minute changes in field placements, pitch-side tactical meetings, fielder substitutions and transitions from over to over of a pace which would embarrass even a tortoise.
Of course, England need only to draw the game to retain the Ashes and were so far behind in the match that victory was but a remote possibility.
Given such circumstances you can understand England lacking the motivation to move swiftly through their overs.
But it denigrates the sport to allow a side to deliver just 12 overs per hour.
A huge crowd gathered at Old Trafford to witness what shaped as an intriguing day of Test cricket. They were surely left frustrated by the glacial pace at which the action unfolded.
It is commonplace during Test matches across the world for an extra 30 minutes of play to be required in the final session to allow for the completion of 90 overs.
In an age when first-class cricket is increasingly marginalised by T20 competitions, ICC administrators should be focused on ensuring Test cricket is as attractive as possible to spectators.
The go-slow tactics implemented by England yesterday should trigger harsh punishments.
Should batsmen be allowed to decide whether they want to bat on in faint light?
When a batting side has reaped 57 runs from the previous 10 overs, just how poor can the light be?
Michael Clarke was understandably incredulous when umpire Marais Erasmus informed him play was being suspended due to insufficient illumination.
As he cantered to 30 not out at close to a run-a-ball, the Aussie skipper had shown no indications he was having trouble sighting the cherry. No doubt the presence of powerful floodlights helped in this regard.
When he trudged from the field, it was just 4:25pm, about six hours shy of when darkness typically descends during the English summer. Only 56 overs had been delivered for the day.
The ICC regulations in regards to light state that, “if at any time the umpires together agree that the conditions of ground, weather or light are so bad that there is obvious and foreseeable risk to the safety of any player or umpire, so that it would be unreasonable or dangerous for play to take place, then they shall immediately suspend play, or not allow play to commence or to restart. The decision as to whether conditions are so bad as to warrant such action is one for the umpires alone to make.”
No amount of assurances from Clarke that the safety of he and batting partner Ryan Harris was not at risk could sway Erasmus and Tony Hill, who quickly abandoned play.
In previous years batsmen were consulted by the umpires as to whether they wanted to continue playing.
Scenarios such as yesterday’s farce suggest that rule should never have been amended.
Are England abusing field substitution rules?
No side in international cricket substitutes their players on and off the field with the same regularity as the Poms.
It is striking how often you spot an unknown face in the field for England.
From Joe Root’s younger brother Billy at Lords, to Essex leg spinner Tom Craddock in this Test, and Essex keeper-batsman Ben Foakes in the series opener at Trent Bridge, England have continually brought on substitutes.
Even England’s fielding coach Chris Taylor spent time prowling the turf as Australia batted at Lords.
International Cricket Council rules dictate that if a player is off the field for longer than eight minutes, when they return to the pitch they cannot bowl for the length of time they were absent.
That matters little to England as they typically substitute their pacemen after they complete a spell, allowing them to retreat to the change rooms for a massage, shower or whatever other activities freshen them up.
Graeme Swann, meanwhile, is notorious for leaving the field directly before he launches into a spell.
In 2008, the ICC announced a crackdown on the use of substitutes stating they would “only be permitted in cases of injury, illness or other wholly acceptable reasons”.
“Wholly acceptable reasons should be limited to extreme circumstances and should not include what is commonly referred to as a ‘comfort break’,” the game’s governing body declared in a statement.
What “wholly acceptable reasons” can the English players be using time and time again? Australia, of course, have also used substitutes this series.
Despite the absence of statistics on the number of substitutions by each side, anecdotally the Poms appear to be dramatically outperforming Australia in their exploitation of the rule.
It has raised the ire of commentators Ian Botham and Shane Warne throughout this Ashes contest.
Substitutes were a rarity in their day when cricketers were expected to tough it out on the field rather than routinely seeking the sanctuary of the dressing room whenever they felt a touch fatigued.
The ICC needs to follow through with their supposed crackdown and eliminate excessive use of substitutes by any side, not just England.