Cricketing fair play, Haddin/Manou
Discussion
The papers today seem to be making quite a lot of Strauss letting Aus replace Haddin with Manou after the team sheets had been called. Is this purely an ironic satirical 2 fingers up to Punters after his Cardiff jibes? Otherwise I really dont see the point of commenting as to me it would be both nonsensical and absolutely not-cricket to tell the opposition team that you wouldnt allow them 11 players on the pitch!
DJC said:
The papers today seem to be making quite a lot of Strauss letting Aus replace Haddin with Manou after the team sheets had been called. Is this purely an ironic satirical 2 fingers up to Punters after his Cardiff jibes? Otherwise I really dont see the point of commenting as to me it would be both nonsensical and absolutely not-cricket to tell the opposition team that you wouldnt allow them 11 players on the pitch!
Its all paper talk. Any captain would have done the same thing.pkitchen said:
DJC said:
The papers today seem to be making quite a lot of Strauss letting Aus replace Haddin with Manou after the team sheets had been called. Is this purely an ironic satirical 2 fingers up to Punters after his Cardiff jibes? Otherwise I really dont see the point of commenting as to me it would be both nonsensical and absolutely not-cricket to tell the opposition team that you wouldnt allow them 11 players on the pitch!
Its all paper talk. Any captain would have done the same thing.
They haven't got enough cricket to talk about from yesterday's late start so they're making a big deal of the late substitution. Any other decision from Strauss just wouldn't have been cricket, what!
The reality is that Australia will have had 11 fielders, but one of the remaining 10 would have had to keep wickets.
We would have only had 10 batsmen.
Strauss showed good sporting spirit - he probably figured you'd get rained off anyway.
But, if the match is close, he may rue the day.
Rules are rules. I have complained on here that England take the piss bringing sub fielders on the rest their bowlers all the time. In this case, Strauss should have said, I'd love to Ricky, but rules are rules.
We would have only had 10 batsmen.
Strauss showed good sporting spirit - he probably figured you'd get rained off anyway.
But, if the match is close, he may rue the day.
Rules are rules. I have complained on here that England take the piss bringing sub fielders on the rest their bowlers all the time. In this case, Strauss should have said, I'd love to Ricky, but rules are rules.
johnfm said:
The reality is that Australia will have had 11 fielders, but one of the remaining 10 would have had to keep wickets.
We would have only had 10 batsmen.
Strauss showed good sporting spirit - he probably figured you'd get rained off anyway.
But, if the match is close, he may rue the day.
Rules are rules. I have complained on here that England take the piss bringing sub fielders on the rest their bowlers all the time. In this case, Strauss should have said, I'd love to Ricky, but rules are rules.
John, you should know better, they are LAWS not rules.We would have only had 10 batsmen.
Strauss showed good sporting spirit - he probably figured you'd get rained off anyway.
But, if the match is close, he may rue the day.
Rules are rules. I have complained on here that England take the piss bringing sub fielders on the rest their bowlers all the time. In this case, Strauss should have said, I'd love to Ricky, but rules are rules.
Haddin would still have batted and Hussey kept, a sub would have been allowed under any interpretation of the law as Haddin was injured during the course of the match which technically starts at the toss.
But as said by the OP, Strauss didn't have to but did and all credit to him for it.
suthol said:
johnfm said:
The reality is that Australia will have had 11 fielders, but one of the remaining 10 would have had to keep wickets.
We would have only had 10 batsmen.
Strauss showed good sporting spirit - he probably figured you'd get rained off anyway.
But, if the match is close, he may rue the day.
Rules are rules. I have complained on here that England take the piss bringing sub fielders on the rest their bowlers all the time. In this case, Strauss should have said, I'd love to Ricky, but rules are rules.
John, you should know better, they are LAWS not rules.We would have only had 10 batsmen.
Strauss showed good sporting spirit - he probably figured you'd get rained off anyway.
But, if the match is close, he may rue the day.
Rules are rules. I have complained on here that England take the piss bringing sub fielders on the rest their bowlers all the time. In this case, Strauss should have said, I'd love to Ricky, but rules are rules.
Haddin would still have batted and Hussey kept, a sub would have been allowed under any interpretation of the law as Haddin was injured during the course of the match which technically starts at the toss.
But as said by the OP, Strauss didn't have to but did and all credit to him for it.
Moot point now though. Game on.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff