|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 21, 2015 11:33:12 GMT
Umpires have lost a lot of credibility over the will-they/won't they implementation of DRS, the relinquishment of their judgment in determining a throw, and the political implications of their management of the ball since the days of Darrell Hair. All of these things have contributed to the umpire voluntarily abdicating from the role of policeman/wise uncle, and perhaps they are afraid to reimpose their authority. But that is needed too. Lastly, the coaches should consider the longer term aspects of the ways they encourage their teams to behave and how that may affect their audience. If the ICC want to do something useful it should look at reinforcing these messages to captains, umpires and coaches, reminding them that they have the responsibility themselves and telling them to use it for the better enjoyment of the game.
In defence of the umpires, on DRS they are dealing with an imperfect system and, as is often the case, are the ones who get the grief for the shortcomings in the system. They are primarily there to call the game not play policeman (or nanny) to the players and their outbursts. I would rather they get front foot no-balls right, and their part of the Lbw law correct (what happens when DRS is involved is out of their control), than have their days dominated by having to control grown men who should know better.
Strikes me as a shame in some ways that we have had more players suspended for over-rate misdemeanours than poor behaviour, when anecdotally the latter is more out of control than the former. Perhaps penalty runs would be a better deterrent on over-rates than slaps on wrist/fines/bans etc
Sorry, irishexile, I obviously didn't express myself clearly. My point in referring to DRS controversies, amongst other things that have been seen to lose them credibility, is that contributies to taking out part of the structure of the game. Umpires are not policemen, but they are there to uphold the Laws of the game, just as captains should be focussed on keeping their players minds on winning the game, and coaches on finding the best sides for a particular contest. Once you start chipping away at this - and of course, the media will gleefully leap on anything like a story - then it becomes tempting for people to push the boundaries just that little bit more each time. Regulation is not the answer: imposing penalty runs for ball-tampering didn't have a great result against Pakistan a few years ago and you will certainly put much greater demands on your umpires when they have to decide which of Warner's onscenities or grimaces is the one to take Australia over the edge, or whether Prior's jelly beans constitute a dangerous or offensive gesture. Re borderman: your point about Lillee, Greig and Javed is well-taken. They were all pretty objectionable, and its to our lasting shame that Greig was made captain and his heightened profile seemed to legitimise that kind of abuse. What we have at the moment, and it is media-driven, is a climate in which England, Australia and India are all wound up to try to outdo each other in sledging and general stupidity. If one of them were to appoint a captain with a shred of moral authority it would defuse this tendency immediately. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2015 23:23:30 GMT
Jimmy Anderson on sledging:
“I don’t think it is any different or there are any more verbals than there has been in the history of cricket. There is just more of a spotlight on it at the minute with the stump mics and more cameras.
I think it is good for the game to have a bit of niggle but there is a line you can’t cross and you’ve just got to do it with a bit of intelligence. We’re aware of the cameras and the microphones and we know that if we do cross the line the umpires are going to come down on us and we’ll get fined.
It is a part of the game and it has happened for over 100 years so it isn’t just going to disappear, you just have to be a bit smart about it with the focus on it.I don’t think it should disappear from the game, I think it’s quite entertaining when it’s done in the right manner.”
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 22, 2015 7:12:48 GMT
Jimmy Anderson on sledging: “I don’t think it is any different or there are any more verbals than there has been in the history of cricket. There is just more of a spotlight on it at the minute with the stump mics and more cameras. I think it is good for the game to have a bit of niggle but there is a line you can’t cross and you’ve just got to do it with a bit of intelligence. We’re aware of the cameras and the microphones and we know that if we do cross the line the umpires are going to come down on us and we’ll get fined. It is a part of the game and it has happened for over 100 years so it isn’t just going to disappear, you just have to be a bit smart about it with the focus on it.I don’t think it should disappear from the game, I think it’s quite entertaining when it’s done in the right manner.” So we're agreed then, you, me and Jimmy Anderson? Don't be too mouthy and learn when to keep it buttoned. Excellent precis of the bowler's position. As to the close fielder who looms up menacingly with a "what did you say? Speak English can't you?" - no excuse, that's just a swaggering bully whose captain should tell him to shut up and concentrate on his fielding. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 20:23:06 GMT
Andrew Flintoff: "Twenty years ago sledging was ten times worse."
Not sure I totally buy into the 'ten times' claim; but I can well believe that sledging which was uninhibited by the acute aural capabilities of stump microphones may well have been considerably more indelicate than the comments of modern day players, which self-serving has-been cricketers like Agnew and Crowe now claim to find so offensive to their gossamer-winged sensibilities.
And,hh, can I belatedly pick you up on Warner's "speak English" comment? Now suppose someone whom you know speaks both perfect English and perfect Hindi chooses to address you in Hindi, knowing that you won't understand...I'd say the insult is coming from the Hindi speaker, wouldn't you? And in those circumstances, I would also respond by saying 'speak English'. Reminds me of the scene in Wolf Hall when the French amabassador insults Cromwell at Thomas More's dinner table in a foreign tongue. Unlike David Warner, Cromwell was a brilliant linguist and was able to expose the sniggering insult of his adversary for what it was...
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 24, 2015 6:53:01 GMT
You may address the issue again borderman, but the fact is, its none of Warner's business what is being said and what is not. He's just asking for an excuse to begin aggression. The language is irrelevant. Neither you nor I speak Hindi or any of the other Indian languages, so we don't know if he was saying "Come one step closer and I'll tear your nasty little ratty moustache off and feed it to the gulls" or "Would you mind piping down a bit, I'm trying to concentrate on the bowling" or even "Must remember to send a message home, get them to record Wolf Hall on Wednesday night". None of it has any relevance to the fielder and he's even more stupid than I take Warner for if he gets worked up about it , not understanding it, and doesn't get on with changing ends and going to his new position for the next over. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 9:28:40 GMT
By that logic it is none of Rohit Sharma's business what Warner says back to him, either. And none of James Anderson's business if Michael Clarke says his bowlers are going to break his arm. And none of Jadeja's business what f and c words Anderson hurls at him. Suppose Sharma was indeed saying in Hindi "Come one step closer and I'll tear your nasty little ratty moustache off and feed it to the gulls" . If that is no business of Warner (or the umpire) because they don't understand the language, would you object if Sharma had said those same words in English ? If so, we have hit a fascinating conundrum. The sub-continental sides all have their own languages, which the opposition don't understand.The Saffers can insult their opponents in Afrikaans or Zulu or Xhosa. The Windies can lapse into impenetrable patois and utter the most blood-curling raas claat abuse, risking only puzzled looks from opposition and officials. It's only England, Australia and New Zealand who are at a disadvantage here. So Warner and his team mates could perhaps learn Aboriginal in order to be able to say whatever they like to Sharma with impunity. The Kiwis could speak Maori and Robert Croft could join England's huge army of backroom support staff as team linguist, and teach the boyos to speak Welsh. It all rather misses the point that language is there for us to communicate with each other, so if Sharma elects to address Warner in a certain language for the sole reason that he knows he won't be understood when they both also share a common language, it's intentionally rude and provocative - just as it was at Thomas More's table in Wolf Hall the other night. Which I suppose only goes to show that sledging has been around for 500 years and that it is idle to think that the ICC can wave a big stick and makle it disappear now! |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 24, 2015 11:22:13 GMT
A case of one too many mornings here borderman, but perhaps we can agree that it is never right to escalate these issues to the point where the ICC wields its legislative sledgehammer. Could we also agree that captains could do more - on both sides - to calm down hot-tempered and/or stupid players and get them to focus more on the game?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2015 11:35:17 GMT
A case of one too many mornings here borderman, but perhaps we can agree that it is never right to escalate these issues to the point where the ICC wields its legislative sledgehammer. Could we also agree that captains could do more - on both sides - to calm down hot-tempered and/or stupid players and get them to focus more on the game? Yeah - either that or the ICC could instruct all players to take the field with compulsory ear-plugs!!! |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 24, 2015 13:18:25 GMT
A case of one too many mornings here borderman, but perhaps we can agree that it is never right to escalate these issues to the point where the ICC wields its legislative sledgehammer. Could we also agree that captains could do more - on both sides - to calm down hot-tempered and/or stupid players and get them to focus more on the game? Yeah - either that or the ICC could instruct all players to take the field with compulsory ear-plugs!!! If you're not careful I'll send Edgar Froese to haunt you!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 17:41:59 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 17:48:47 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 13:50:37 GMT
Intriguing interview today with England's World Cup captain, who says he's entering this year's IPL auction rather than looking to use successs at the World Cup to try to force his way into the England Test tour party to the West Indies.
I think at the moment Morgan is a long shot for the Test tour party, so fair play to him. But who knows in cricket - say Morgan ends up as England's leading runscorer in the competition and plays three or four big match-winning innings? What if Taylor and Ballance are flops or Root or Moeen Ali gets injured?
He has today effectively ruled himself unavailable and asserted his peference for the IPL (although he'd still like to play Test cricket again at some stage, blah blah blah - presumably when it doesn't clash with him makimng more money elsewhere). Can you imagine how people would have reacted if Kevin Pietersen had said something like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by leedsgull on Jan 29, 2015 13:55:29 GMT
I suppose he is just facing reality and cashing in while he can. I don't expect Middlesex will be too impressed however.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 14:39:26 GMT
Looking at the England World Cup 15, there are several who probably won't be in the Test party to the Windies - Bopara and Hales, possibly James Taylor and now no Morgan, as he appears to have made himself unavailable.
So that could be up to four batsmen to come in. Cook will be one of them. But who are the other candidates - Robson? Trott?? Bairstow if they want a second keeper ? (although surely not on such a short tour).
Taylor has a golden opportunity to stake his claim , but Morgan may have had a better chance than he appears to think to leapfrog other contenders and force his way back into the party. I know the world cup is white ball stuff, but England have always played the 50 over game more like a Test than a T20 and if Morgan uses the platform well and makes big runs, he could probably have made a very strong case for inclusion.
I don't blame him for opting for the IPL, because even if he made the tour party he would almost certainly be a drinks carrier. But I'm just intrigued that he will probably escape censure when KP would have been hung, drawn and quartered for uttering the same words.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 29, 2015 14:48:44 GMT
Looking at the England World Cup 15, there are several who probably won't be in the Test party to the Windies - Bopara and Hales, possibly James Taylor and now no Morgan, as he appears to have made himself unavailable. So that could be up to four batsmen to come in. Cook will be one of them. But who are the other candidates - Robson? Trott?? Bairstow if they want a second keeper ? (although surely not on such a short tour). Taylor has a golden opportunity to stake his claim , but Morgan may have had a better chance than he appears to think to leapfrog other contenders and force his way back into the party. I know the world cup is white ball stuff, but England have always played the 50 over game more like a Test than a T20 and if Morgan uses the platform well and makes big runs, he could probably have made a very strong case for inclusion. I don't blame him for opting for the IPL, because even if he made the tour party he would almost certainly be a drinks carrier. But I'm just intrigued that he will probably escape censure when KP would have been hung, drawn and quartered for uttering the same words. I think Lyth has enhanced his chances after the South African run-riot, while Robson has dropped back. I hope we don't go back to Trott because it's retrograde, and because its putting a damaged man back in the line of fire. I think Taylor's star could be rising, and a good run in the World Cup would do him no harm - though I think that " England have always played the 50 over game more like a Test than a T20" is one of the main reasons why England have been so poor at the format. I wouldn't agree with you about Morgan's chances, because I think that his fallibilities in first-class cricket are much to well-known to take chances with. For that reason I don't think there's a direct relationship with the Pietersen case - Morgan has already been told his services aren't required in Tests and he isn't contesting it. |
|
