I'd imagine the aussies didn't think for 1 sec that Eng would have a go for anything like as long as they did

and "imagining"

Aleem Dar is not fit to umpire a international cricket match again the guys has not even played 1st class cricket so he don't know the game situation, it was clear by the footage he wanted to go off and Dharmensena the ex sri lanka spinner wanted the match to finish.

I agree I think Clarke expected us to bat out the draw at our usual 3 runs an over and he could go back to Australia making us look like negative team happy to take a draw and time waste etc, we didn't do that and it's rather ironic that by the end of the day Clarke and Australia were the ones doing exactly the things the Australian media has criticized us for.

Criticising England for gamesmanship was silly, criticising Australia for the same is also silly.

No but criticising (certain) aussies for hypocrisy is fair game imo.

indeed. until the bad light fiasco clarke was set to look a total idiot for setting a target which his side virtually no chance of winning presumably trying to look clever for the benefit of the tv and radio boys. as others have said easy to look an imaginative skipper when in charge of a hopelessly outmatched side

give me a skipper who just interested in winning matches and series in time honoured fashion any day of the week

The umpires could easily have used discretion and then face any backlash later.

The game of cricket must always come first.

The slow over rates by both sides contributed to a late finish but ultimately the umpires should act in the interests of the sport as a whole and not on the basis that a player has a 1 in a thousand chance of being injured cos they can't see.

How many of us clubbies have played in bad light? I'd say all of us. I know noone who has ever been injured despite poorer pitches, outfields, less good or no sightscreens, slower reactions etc.

Test Cricket is up it's own arse.

Hello Ladies,

I was at the match on Sunday and didn't look at the prices all day...probably just as well!

It was a great day out.  People should remember they were entertained royally.  Clarke made what I thought was a sporting declaration on a pretty playable pitch.  I never saw the light thing coming till Clarke was whinging at the Umpires.  I felt that he blotted his copy book in that he made a generous declaration but in my view should have walked the walk and lived with it.  I also thought at the time he would have been appreciated for what he did and not criticised for the declaration.

In hindsight It was clear my judgement was affected by drinking Guinness from 9.30am and also copious amounts of red wine.

It was dark, there are rules in place.  At the end of the day the Captain has to do what he can to stave off defeat but I just felt a spirit of cricket was being applied and it was glorious.  In sobriety I can see he would have been nailed to the cross for losing.  I think Clarke had a shot at glory and he missed it.

I was one of the boo boys but only in jest at Clarke for claiming the light and not taking his beating like a man.  No blame to the Umpires for me and I was disappointed they got the bird but that may also be for their general poor standard ( I was still disappointed by the booing of them ).

It really was a great day and you all must have enjoyed it on tv.  The ending is a different and difficult question. The rules are wrong.  I have to tell you though it was dark ( my eyes may have been closing a bit ?

It was a great day out.  Go to cricket guys!

It would be simple enough to add a rule that if the umpires believe either team are deliberately slowing the game down in order to force teams off for bad light, then after a couple of warnings the umpires have the discretion to continue the game should the opposite team agree.

There was no point setting a "nothing to lose" target as it would almost certainly mean England's approach to it would mean Australia had nothing to win. I thought he got it spot on.

but having said that like I said earlier I think Clarke expect us not to chase the win at all and so the Ausssie media would be having a go at us for not trying to win it etc.

So, what was the best thing he could have done then?

Yes Mcik,

That's exactly what I think he was trying to do.  At first I just thought he was being generous then it dawned on me he made a massive **** up!

A nothing to lose declaration and then taking 4-5 England wickets would have given Aussie massive momentum going forward and the moral high ground.  The English fans would be questioning the England performance and thinking.  Aussie had no chance of winning the game as ironically enough bad light would have saved England if they needed it

As it is in the clear light of day we see Aussie have batted well twice on very good batting pitches.  Their batting personnel was wrong, better men at home or at least batting in England.  A key batsman was not allowed to play while Aussie lost the Ashes again

All in all this tour was a poor one for Australia on nearly all fronts.  Their much heralded Captain made the biggest mistake at OT by not getting enough runs on the board before declaring giving England the chance to avoid the follow on and enough time was taken out of the game before the weather forced a conclusion.

The Aussie management has not covered itself in glory and Boof's personal attack on the Broad may still have repercussions.

Why was Harris not picked first up?  Aussie forming a good pace attack I think Harris, Starc and Pattison are good enough to cause England problems,  Cummins as well.  They are a top quality spinner light but Lyon is not bad.

England to continue their ground and pound in Australia as far as I can see particularly if their batsmen start to bat.

Funny end to the thread.  How many times have we seen players go off for bad light due to the England batsmen in a blink off with the umpires.  "Stare" down the umpire blinking as if bad light, then when no reaction trying it on to the square leg captain.

The reality is, the light meter had a reading of 3 less than when England forced players off the ground through their constant appealing for bad light at Durham.  The reason there was a reading for this match, was again for England appealing hard for bad light earlier in the game.  Aus have been copping this all series.

The umpires should only be criticised for taking too much notice of the England players with their tactics.  They sit there bowling 11 overs an hour, discussing field changes every ball, tying up shoelaces every over, sending players on and off the field.  With the bat they walk around delaying more, and beg for bad light.  The umpires for one, should never fall for it, and for two, should both fine Cook, and suspend him, as they did with Dhoni.  They made a mockery of the umpires this series.

Clarke was put in a position where he had to make a game of it to chance winning.  For every person here that thinks he made a suicide declaration, I will show you somebody (with the same forum name in most cases) that said in no way ever, would England attempt to win the game so it did not matter when he declared.  He set a good total, allowing enough overs to bowl them out if everything went their way, and knowing that the 44 overs was at very long odds to be completed considering the precedent had been set as to the time that play could no longer continue.  I guarantee that they were very lucky to get so many overs in in the first place.
Clarke begging to go off?  Clarke reminding the umpires what a rort it would be if they weren't consistant more like it.  With so much damage already done this series to the umpiring fraternity, how would it then look if Australia gets sent off when in control every time for bad light at Englands request, and then England given a chance denied of Australia to play in such light.

In regards to people suggesting double standards, I think you need to realise that when a team uses such tactics against you and it is said to be ok by those in charge of the game, that precedents are set and new rules are effectively made. 

Either way, even if all the overs were miraculously bowled out, England were unlikely to win the game.  And they should have gone off probably half an hour earlier.
How was it even so that the umpires didn't even have the light meter with them?  They are required to go off when that light meter hit a certain level, and they didn't even take it with them relying on their eyes that are proven to be so ineffective?

Clarke did what any captain would have done. But when he declared the second innings, he never believed he would win that match. What he wanted to continue was the effective Australian press/PR narrative - Australia exciting risk-takers, England dull and negative - which was the thing that backfired as England set about the total with gusto. The sight of the Australians timewasting and 'encouraging' the umpires to take the players off sank that particular myth in quick time.

Would England have timewasted in the same way? Yep. Would any other country? Yep. There's no moral high-ground with all this timewasting, slow over-rates, not walking etc etc. EVERY professional side does it when it's advantageous to them. Every single one.

But I say again, given the state of the match and the state of the series, Clarke's declaration was simply what any other captain in the same situation would have done. To portray him as some sort of swashbuckling, ultra-positive skipper is absurd; to imply that he made some sort of mistake is equally wrong.

Was Monty Panesar involved in the post match celebrations ? You know the old saying " IN ONE END , AND OUT THE OTHER " .

Can't take what?  I find you amusing.  Self proclaimed man of fiction, yet you feel the need to pick apart anything possible with no thought of how ridiculous it makes you look.  79,000?  Makes no difference really, somebody that makes any decent money wouldn't have spent so much time trying to find something I said that wasn't 100% fact.  Maybe spend a little more time next time, you might come up with something.

At least the others will risk 20 bucks on their opinion.  You?  Nah, you don't even bet because you are a degenerate gambler that knows he will lose the lot (can quote you if need be) yet feel compelled to spend a game of cricket on a forum discussing gambling.
You are a dime a dozen, and there are at least that many of you on this thread alone.

Have a nice day. 

In terms of Clarke not believing Australia could win, this seems to be a trendy statement everyone is trotting out to try and mock him. But it's a nonsensical statement. Of course he believed there was some sort of chance Australia could win. And of course he knew it was a slim one. He wouldn't be backing them odds on but he certainly believed it wasn't impossible for them to win.

He also probably knew it was more likely England would win but you'd have to ask him that.