I was reading the comments by the readers in the Guardian...sheesh! I thought it was just Aussies who were bad winners.
More than 50% are stupid (no swearingplease) without a brain in their heads.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/aug/25/england-australia-fifth-test-match-reportClarke was rightfully booed because his team and coach moaned about England at every opportunity and complained about them being defensive, boring, cheating and everything else.
When it came down to it, England would have won having only played 10 men and the Aussies ran away with their tails between their collective legs having yet again not made good on all their talk, just like in the rugby. Nice to see us sticking it to the bullies Down Under.
Just what rugby is this moron talking about?
Obviously this cretin has conveniently forgotten that without rain washing out play, England would have been chasing something closer to 400.
No there isn't, certainly not in the context of this Test. England did what they felt they needed to do in order to maximise their chances of getting a favourable result, and if Clarke hadn't slowed the over rate to a crawl at the end there's a better-than-average chance it would have paid off. Equally, Clarke did what he had to do in order to avoid a loss. There is no condemnation from me for either team as far as that is concerned, since that's all part of Test cricket.
So this (removed) thinks that the last day panned out the way that it did because Cook/England planned it out that way on day two with their go slow....just so they could force Clarke into a whacky declaration in the last session of day five after predicting that day four would be washed out??? All from the vantage point of day two/three?
When someone calls this moron out, he proceeds to defend his deluded logic further...
Chasing 500-odd, especially knowing that at least a day is going to be lost due to weather, means a draw is almost a certainty anyway. Building a meaningful first innings lead against that sort of target is extremely unlikely in any circumstance, so the smart thing to do is protect your wickets and make sure you enter the second innings with either a total close enough that it's honours even (risky), or wind down enough of the clock to make it almost impossible for the opponent to win (which is what England chose to do).
As it is, England's choice of action practically forced Clarke into a desperate gamble on the last day and but for poor light might have given them a route to an unlikely win, so I fail to see how it was a poor decision. Despite their so-called negativity, England ended up the most likely team to win and would probably have done so if Clarke hadn't employed his own 'negative' tactics.
Ironically, for all the talk that England had surrendered momentum to Australia with their obstinate batting on the third day, it will be England who have the momentum going into the winter series.
...and then he attempts to defend it further still...
guess I just don't see the difference, it's either a part of a captain's arsenal or its not. At what point do you believe it acceptable to start 'delaying the game' and 'playing negatively'? We've established that you believe Day 2 is unacceptable. Is Day 3 ok? Day 4? Or is it only ok in the last session of a Test when it looks like you're going to lose? Where is the line?
The only reason Clarke gave England a sniff was because of the situation England had put him in. He had to either give England a sniff or play out for a draw himself.
Then there is this idiot...
All the more remarkable when you think England chose to play with only 10 men at the Oval. Poor Kerrigan contributed nothing with bat and ball, yet England were a whisker from winning until the Aussies decided to take their ball away and go home with defeat imminent. A moral victory if there ever was one.
I dunno what drugs this (No Swearing Please) is on...but gee wiz, share it around...
Ah Australia. Disgusting gamesmanship and time wasting. Cowardly. They can play however they want to play, they are 3-0 for a reason, but if you're 3-0 down I'd have thought you'd try and get in a position to win a test. That's their choice. I know the fans get a refund for their tickets yesterday but maybe they should have for today. It didn't surprise me. I suppose any time they feel threatened they go into their shell and play pretty defensive cricket. When we gi to Australia it will be played on our terms and they are going to be in for a hell of a challenge back home.
Then this bright spark chimes in with this pearl of wisdom...
Why should they be grateful to Clarke?!!!
They pay his match fee and he harangued the umpires into taking the players off with just 4 overs left of a game he was supposedly trying to make into a result.
Clarke's actions were entirely selfish and had nothing to do with entertaining the crowd.
Then this dick chose to make a complete dick of himself...
Clarke showed his true colours there.
He was never interested in a "contest" or a "spectacle". He wanted a cheap win to start to mask the dreadful record he has as Australia captain over the last six months. And just as it started to go wrong, there he was, slowing the game down and pressuring the umpires. Doing the same things he and "Boof" have been criticising England for.
Warne and the cricketing hipsters can keep their mental declarations and wacky field-placings.
I'll stick with a captain who makes sensible decisions. Congrats to Cook and the England team on a great summer. Improvement is probable, but almost certainly not needed to retain the urn.
Then this pure genius...
Australia saved by a few clouds.
Australia saved by daft ICC ruling.
Australia saved by Clarkey Chicken.
It's actually nine...but who am I to argue with a moron? (BTW, the "Aussie" only said that the series was somewhat closer than the 3-0 margin suggests)
Hilarious !. Only an Australian could say this with a straight face. The Aussies have not won a test match in the last 10 they have played. It's not the umpires or the pitches or the weather or the DRS or ....... It's because your players are not good enough. It's probably why Australia is ranked 5th in comparison with England's 2nd in the world.
Then this gem...what a cretin...
Quick poll - who is a worse loser ,that horrible little man - Ricky ponting or this years Aussie loser ,Michael Clarke ?.
My personal view is that Ponting was worse. A totally graceless individual.
Another poonce...
Clarke's intimidation of the umpires was scandalous; they should report him and at least one of his thuggish team, Warner, to the authorities.
This is by far the worst-behaved Australian team to have visited Britain in memory. Good riddance to them -- and I hope England whitewash them in Australia.
This pompous (removed) gets it wrong on so many levels...firstly, the umpires don't offer the batsmen the light anymore....a dark ball against a dark sky/crowd is dangerous/unfair for a fielding team just as it is for a batting team. Secondly, a "whitewash" is when a team wins ALL tests that are on offer...much like the 5-0 in Oz five years ago and the 3-0 (out of 3 tests) in Oz in 1979/80...
Clarke had to declare or be labelled a hypocrite. He had whinged to the Press, the umpire and KP for a good while. Even his team mates banged on about Englands slow batting (whatever the hell that is).
To see Clarkes distraught little baby face, as he reprehensibly interfered with the umpires light measurement, and for said official have to push him away by hand on two occasions, was frankly disgraceful. If I was the umpire I would have stopped taking the reading for another over and advised Clarke the same would happen again until he stopped interfering. That'd show the bludgers.
I've never seen an Aussie side to disappear from a wicket so fast. A bit like a Keystone Cop moment as they all scuttled off en mass, in quicktime to the Pavilion. Cookie was quite right to say we would have won had the light held out.
If Clarke had been less of a hypocrite and more of a man, or indeed a sportsman, he would not have protested his fielders could not see the ball and played on to the end. After all the light is traditionally offered to the batsmen when the official consider the bowling dangerous. How often do the fielding side complain that no danger exists especially when they use spinners? On every occasion, that's how often. And the retort from the officials is always that the light is offered to the batsmen, spinners or not.
In my book you can't have it both ways. Declaring at Tea was brave and foolhardy but Clarke had no choice if he was to salvage anything from the Series. Had his bowlers bowled better and KP not batted so well Clarke would have been screaming to keep our batsmen on the pitch as light faded. Seems he wanted his cake and eat it, which we all know, you just can't have. We may not have fired on all cylinders in all departments but we know how to win matches.
It may be 3-0 in Wisden but morally it was a 4-0 whitewash.
Well done England. Good luck for the Winter Ashes Tour.
You simply have to laugh...
Absolutely - not a shred of sportsmanship in Clarke's declaration.
From then on his unsportsmanlike strategy mean an Aussie win or a draw.
This (No Swearing Please) spent a lot of time on this thoughtful bit of prose...but it becomes apparent that he didn't even watch the game...."Australia were saved by English summer rain"???Oh yeah, as if any English captain/player in the 1990's fronted up to a presser and said "we are (No Swearing Please), we are gonna lose this test too"...plonker...
It is an insight into character to see the Australia cricket team and its army of administrators fail to concede, even after this result and the result in India, that they are a second XI, living off the brilliant deeds done dirt cheap by previous Aussie teams. No shame in being lowly. Many English cricketers once made a career from losing.
And yet when England lost, there was a sense of humour present to ease the pain or the pain was eased by open acknowledgment of not being quite good enough on the day. Humour and acknowledgement both calm the anxious. What can also be said of acknowledgment is it brings with it the opportunity to do the things necessary so as to start to improve. And this test series was all about confirming that England has taken that opportunity and improved and Australia has not.
There is raw and adolescent tension when Australia loses. Players, wounded in defeat, front up and savagely proclaim that Australia will still win the series or even the last test match. Such theatre was pure Monty Python and induced the typically polite English cricket crowds into laughter. The only surprise in the result was whether Australia would lose by stoning or crucifixion.
In the fifth test, Clarke was four overs away from engineering the ultimate loss, but he was saved by an unlikely source: England's summer rain. And if Australia is to improve then it needs to acknowledge it is a team which is a work in progress, and it is the under-dog seeking to knock the top-dog off its box; else there will be a lot of empty sets, particularly here in Australia, when this wonderful contest resumes.
...and on and on and on it goes.
If Aussie fans were like this when we were on top - I apologise on behalf of a nation, but seriously, these are some of the most retarded offerings from so called fans that you are ever likely to see.
I should point out that nearly half the comments were fair, so there is some hope!
Author
Topic: The Ashes 2013 (Read 150326 times)