BBC Blog Network

User Profile

datatarathian

Listed below are comments made by datatarathian between Tuesday, 21st July 2009 and Thursday, 23rd July 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme 4:04pm on 23 Jul 2009 Sorry about the repeated comments above. My fault. Bit of a glitch. The first post didn`t appear. I thought it was probably over length, so I altered it and posted again. Apologies.
Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme 2:59pm on 23 Jul 2009 My main beef, and I`ve heard similar concern from various quarters, including from Nasser Hussein, is regarding England`s dubious manipulations of the substitution rules and the way substitutes are sent on for every player who takes a break from the field of play. In most home tests especially with the England team, this happens on a regular basis. It is of course up to the discretion of the umpire, but substitute fielders should only be allowed for players who have been injured or who become ill after the nomination of players. I counted at least seven English players in the Lord`s test who at one time or another went off the field of play, and all were allowed fielding substitutes. Excuse me for being cynical when considering that their breaks were all for being ill or injured.

From Law 2...
1. Substitutes and runners
(a) If the umpires are satisfied that a player has been injured or become ill after the nomination of the players, they

shall allow that player to have
(i) a substitute acting instead of him in the field.
(ii) a runner when batting.
Any injury or illness that occurs at any time after the nomination of the players until the conclusion of the match

shall be allowable, irrespective of whether play is in progress or not.

This is the grey area of the laws that needs to be looked at. The fact that injuries to both Flintoff and Pieterson

were carried into the match and not incurred in the current match, raises doubts that either of them should have

been given substitute fielders.

["you've said Flintoff has taken all the glory when he hasn't"] --- I`ve said no such thing. You may not agree with my assessment, but what I said was "they [Warne and Flintoff] both enjoyed the limelight and the adulation. The difference, and the point I`m making, is that Warne (which I only used as one example), who had by far a better record than Flintoff, accepted it but did not chase it."

["(although most of it has been handed to him), and you're arguing against the hypothesis that he's the greatest

player of all time (which no-one has claimed)."] --- I`d love you to show me exactly where I`ve done that. ???

["What you have implied, whether intentionally or not, is that you think Flintoff is an egotist,"] --- But he is. And so are most top sportsmen, although in varying degrees. Otherwise they most likely wouldn`t make

it to the top.

["party to cheating,"] --- Again I`ve said no such thing. Have you actually read what I`ve posted?

["and that he had as much or less impact on the game than the other bowlers.] --- What I`ve IMPLIED is that it was a team effort. It was the team as a whole which should have been applauded, but Flintoff got the most credit, which was to my mind somewhat over the top.

["Since all of these things are either intangible or false, I'm inferring you have something against him."] --- Nothing against him at all. You`re making assumptions which have no justification.

["And why write 'Flintoff wouldn't hit the top 30' in answer to 'who are the greatest 10 test players in history?'

unless it was personal?"] --- It may have escaped your notice, but the thread is about Flintoff. It`s entitled "Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme". There are many other great players who wouldn`t (in my opinion) make the top thirty test players in history either. Apart from the substitution rules I`ve said nothing against the performances of either England and Flintoff that hasn`t been also said by other posters on this thread.
Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme 1:59pm on 23 Jul 2009 ["To be honest, the only thing I really have an issue with is that your beefs are pretty much stemming from within your own head. You've called England cheats for behaviour which is within the rules,]

Not only from my head. I`ve heard concern from various quarters, including from Nasser Hussein regarding England`s dubious manipulations of the substitution rules. My main beef is with the way substitutes are sent on for every player who takes a break from the field of play. In most home tests especially with the England team, this happens on regular basis. It is of course up to the discretion of the umpire, but substitute fielders should only be allowed for players who have been injured or who become ill after the commencement of play. I counted at least seven English players in the Lord`s test who at one time or another went off the field of play, and were all allowed fielding substitutes. Excuse me for being cynical when considering that their breaks were all for being ill or injured.

-----------------------

From Law 2...
1. Substitutes and runners
(a) If the umpires are satisfied that a player has been injured or become ill after the nomination of the players, they shall allow that player to have
(i) a substitute acting instead of him in the field.
(ii) a runner when batting.
Any injury or illness that occurs at any time after the nomination of the players until the conclusion of the match shall be allowable, irrespective of whether play is in progress or not.

-----------------------------

This is the grey area of the laws that needs to be looked at. The fact that injuries to both Flintoff and Pieterson were carried into the match and not incurred in the current match, raises doubts that either of them should have been given substitute fielders.

["you've said Flintoff has taken all the glory when he hasn't"]

I said no such thing. You may not agree with my assessment, but what I said was "they [Warne and Flintoff] both enjoyed the limelight and the adulation. The difference, and the point I`m making, is that Warne (which I only used as one example), who had by far a better record than Flintoff, accepted it but did not chase it."

["(although most of it has been handed to him), and you're arguing against the hypothesis that he's the greatest player of all time (which no-one has claimed)."]

I`d love you to show me exactly where I`ve done that. ???

["What you have implied, whether intentionally or not, is that you think Flintoff is an egotist,"]

But he is. And so are most top sportsmen, although in varying degrees. Otherwise they most likely wouldn`t make it to the top.

["party to cheating,"]

Again I`ve said no such thing. Have you actually read what I`ve posted?

["and that he had as much or less impact on the game than the other bowlers.]

What I`ve IMPLIED is that it was a team effort. It was the team as a whole which should have been applauded, but Flintoff got the most credit, which was to my mind slightly over the top.

["Since all of these things are either intangible or false, I'm inferring you have something against him."]

Nothing against him at all. You`re making assumptions which have no justification.

["And why write 'Flintoff wouldn't hit the top 30' in answer to 'who are the greatest 10 test players in history?' unless it was personal?"]

It may have escaped your notice, but the thread is about Flintoff. It`s entitled "Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme". There are many other great players who wouldn`t (in my opinion) make the top thirty test players in history either.
Apart from the substitution rules I`ve said nothing against the performances of either England and Flintoff that hasn`t been also said by other posters on this thread. Perhaps you should attack those too. I wish you joy of it.
Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme 12:28pm on 23 Jul 2009 Why change the word inferred? I hadn`t before said "I`ve nothing against Freddie" straight out, and neither have I, and I certainly haven`t attacked him or his prowess as a cricketer on a personal basis. On one post above I praised Flintoff`s recent 5th day Lord`s performance. I said it was magnificent, and it was. But it was also the other bowlers and the rest of the team who created the situation for him to exploit, and in no way did he win the match single-handedly.
Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme 11:47am on 23 Jul 2009 Oxfordfoxfan,

From your answer it seems to me that the bitterness and bias is coming from you. As I`ve already inferred I`ve nothing whatever against Freddie. Great cricketer, great bowler, great in the slips, and has been a great batsman. I just don`t treat him as a god, and there are others I put above him. As for your personal attack, would "to treat it with contempt" be the right phrase?
Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme 10:38am on 23 Jul 2009 To purpleangelgeorgina...

I suggest you re-read my posts. Nowhere have I denigrated Freddie. I have great admiration for him and his tenacity. I have questioned his "look at me I`m great" antics after taking a wicket. And I`m not like many on this board who would say he`s the best thing since sliced bread. He`s a man of the moment but not a god to be venerated. I agree with others above in that it was Swann and Anderson (not forgetting Onions) who set up the situation for Freddie to exploit. But they don`t seem to have been put on the same pedestal. Neither did they require continual off-field medical treatment to keep them going. I`m sorry if I bore you, but whether you agree with them or not I have as much right to announce my opinions as anyone else.
Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme 10:07am on 23 Jul 2009 Under the various rules regulating the qualification for an England (and Wales) team place, there have also been other players of diverse nationalities. From S.Africa, Zimbabwe, Ireland, Scotland, and probably others I can`t think of offhand. Can`t think of any Australians who have ever played for England, or vice-versa. Maybe someone knows. I understand that Stuart Law is now qualified to play for either country.
Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme 09:51am on 23 Jul 2009 Some of the greatest test players in history...

Bradman
Hobbs
Hutton
Laker
Benaud
Bill Edrich
Tendulkar
Gavaskar
Muralitheran
Warne
McGrath
Botham
Imran Khan
Kapil Dev
Sobers
Gilchrist
Boycott
Gower
Marshall
Wasim Akram
Constantine
Walcott
Headley
Worrall
Viv Richards
Hadley
Waugh twins
Bedser twins
Ian Healey
Clive Lloyd
Kanhai
Andy Roberts
Holding
Holder
Courtney Walsh
Curtly Ambrose

...and many more I would put ahead of Flintoff. And that`s without even mentioning W.G.Grace.
Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme 09:30am on 23 Jul 2009 A difficult question to answer, but I doubt if Flintoff would even make the top thirty.
Flintoff - England's gladiator supreme 5:00pm on 21 Jul 2009 ["You push for a change in the rules when you clearly dont have a clue as to what they actually are. Essentially you are shuddering shamefacedly at England playing within the rules!"]

Exactly where have I said that England was playing outside the law? What I said was that "I shudder shamefacedly at some of the dubious tactics the England team uses in regard to this grey area of the rulebook." I also inferred in a later post that all teams are guilty of them but England more than most.

As for the number of players "wandering" on or off the field in the Lords test. Here are some that I recall from memory who did just that. Pieterson, Flintoff, Onions, Broad, Cook, Collingwood, Strauss, Anderson. That only leaves three of the team who didn`t, and that includes the wicketkeeper.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

datatarathian