maxh
2nd XI player
Posts: 96 
|
Post by maxh on Jul 30, 2014 10:12:42 GMT
I thought Woakes bowled very well with little reward yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on Jul 30, 2014 13:23:51 GMT
Why when we need quick runs, Buttler has plenty of runs already in this game and Root hasn't, have we not sent Buttler in after the fall of the third wicket,preferably followed by Jordan?
ok, I will concede that Root has got a move on, well done him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jul 31, 2014 12:08:24 GMT
Amazing what a week can do.
Many congrats to England and Alistair Cook. They won almost every session. Huge cheers for Cook
as he walks on to the podium to be interviewed by Atherton. Now the concerns are over Anderson's
hearing tomorrow.
Time for the snipers to shut up... for now.
|
|
maxh
2nd XI player
Posts: 96
|
Post by maxh on Jul 31, 2014 12:13:48 GMT
Well well well, 8 wickets in the match for Moeen and had two poor decisions against him too.
If this team can push on from this the future suddenly looks a bit brighter. Buttler had an excellent game behind the stumps showing good athleticism and kept well when the ball was turning, I can't think of a mistake. He then played the kind of innings he's there to play. Ballance wasn't out once in the game, he got two awful decisions that DRS would have overturned. Cook back in the runs, Bell got a big score and Woakes deserved a couple of wickets. The average age of the team is a lot younger now and the players that have come in have performed, though Robson needs to work on his game outside that off stump and Jordan lost his way completely (not entirely his fault having been in and out of the team).
The issue does stand out is what do we do when Anderson runs out of steam.
A heartening match for an England supporter, though maybe not for CJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 31, 2014 12:28:27 GMT
Amazing what a week can do. Many congrats to England and Alistair Cook. They won almost every session. Huge cheers for Cook as he walks on to the podium to be interviewed by Atherton. Now the concerns are over Anderson's hearing tomorrow. Time for the snipers to shut up... for now. Indeed, congratulations to Cook and to England as a whole. Cook turned round not only his batting performance but came to look like a master tactician, although the comic opera incompetence of Dhoni's bowling changes, field placings and general air of barely-suppressed panic certainly helped a lot. I think that Cook is secure as captain until the end of the series now, whatever else happens, and there will be time in the autumn , after this series and the one-dayers that follow, to assess whether he has genuinely developed. Things to watch out for: the Anderson affair, of course, and its repercussions in terms of other bowlers selected (if banned) or on the Indian reaction (if cleared or downgraded); Jordan's future, perhaps as a specialist slip fielder;the extraordinary and wholly unlikely story of the rise to ascendancy of Moeen Ali the off-spinning hero; how long it will take before Ballance is found out by a side that has bowlers who bowl fast and straight; how long before its recognised that Robson isn't quite complete as a Test match batsman yet, and who gets the succession; now that Bell and Root are both in form and confidence, is there any longer a need to look over our shoulders in the direction of a former middle-order strokemaker?......and lots of other things. At least this contest is giving us something to talk about in the absence of any othger cricket in this fine, hot summer. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 1, 2014 15:24:59 GMT
Breaking news on Sky Sports - Anderson and Jadeja both found not guilty.
The storm in the teacup has blown over.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Aug 1, 2014 16:21:09 GMT
Breaking news on Sky Sports - Anderson and Jadeja both found not guilty. The storm in the teacup has blown over. In which case, what the hell were India playing at, insisting on a full hearing and refusing mediation? They appear to have convinced the media that they had a very strong case, and if this 6 hour hearing has found nothing substantive then their credibility has now been comprehensively lost. And Cook and the ECB must be beside themselves, unable to believe how fortune has turned round for them. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 1, 2014 16:57:01 GMT
Yes, it is amazing how England's fortunes have changed in just a week. Quite extraordinary. As if the Team have been touched by the hand of positive fate. When you go through that 1st innings and the missed chances from India. Bell on 0, Cook on 15 (?), Buttler 3 let offs etc etc... Let us hope England haven't used up all their nine lives in that last Test alone and now this Anderson reprieve. Perhaps, they have been given 18 lives?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 8:23:40 GMT
Breaking news on Sky Sports - Anderson and Jadeja both found not guilty. The storm in the teacup has blown over. Anderson is a very lucky boy. I can understand why the ICC did not want to ban him; but given what he did by his own admission, not even slapping him over the wrist with a lower charge and issuing a stern warning over his future conduct has surely given him and others a green light for this sort of thing to continue unabated? According to cricinfo this morning, during the hearing Anderson : "admitted to having continuously abused Jadeja, pushing him and acting in breach of the spirit of cricket. He also threatened to break Jadeja's teeth...Anderson didn't contest the charge that he called Jadeja a "f***ing p**ck" and a "f***ing c**t". I'm all for sledging during the course of play. It's part of the game, and as far as I am concerned it is a quite justifiable tactic to test the mental strength of the opposing batsmen. But the behaviour Anderson has admitted to as they left the field and in the pavilion is simply the mindless yobbishness of a football hooligan. It's worth remembering that if any spectator had used that language against a player, official or Trent Bridge steward, under the ECB's own policy of 'no tolerance' towards abuse of its employees, that spectator would have been evicted from the ground and probably charged with a breach of the peace offence. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 3, 2014 8:37:47 GMT
Breaking news on Sky Sports - Anderson and Jadeja both found not guilty. The storm in the teacup has blown over. Anderson is a very lucky boy. I can understand why the ICC did not want to ban him; but given what he did by his own admission, not even slapping him over the wrist with a lower charge and issuing a stern warning over his future conduct has surely given him and others a green light for this sort of thing to continue unabated? According to cricinfo this morning, during the hearing Anderson : "admitted to having continuously abused Jadeja, pushing him and acting in breach of the spirit of cricket. He also threatened to break Jadeja's teeth...Anderson didn't contest the charge that he called Jadeja a "f***ing p**ck" and a "f***ing c**t". I'm all for sledging during the course of play. It's part of the game, and as far as I am concerned it is a quite justifiable tactic to test the mental strength of the opposing batsmen. But the behaviour Anderson has admitted to as they left the field and in the pavilion is simply the mindless yobbishness of a football hooligan. It's worth remembering that if any spectator had used that language against a player, official or Trent Bridge steward, under the ECB's own policy of 'no tolerance' towards abuse of its employees, that spectator would have been evicted from the ground and probably charged with a breach of the peace offence. Sounds as if Anderson was very lucky, as you say. I suspect his behaviour starts on the field as abusive sledging, and escalates from there. The umpires should step in far earlier in the proceedings, IMO. Any abuse (verbal or physical) should be stamped on by the umpires, with the threat of a formal charge being made if the behaviour is repeated. The ICC have to draw a line which players know they can't cross. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Aug 3, 2014 11:00:07 GMT
Anderson is a very lucky boy. I can understand why the ICC did not want to ban him; but given what he did by his own admission, not even slapping him over the wrist with a lower charge and issuing a stern warning over his future conduct has surely given him and others a green light for this sort of thing to continue unabated? According to cricinfo this morning, during the hearing Anderson : "admitted to having continuously abused Jadeja, pushing him and acting in breach of the spirit of cricket. He also threatened to break Jadeja's teeth...Anderson didn't contest the charge that he called Jadeja a "f***ing p**ck" and a "f***ing c**t". I'm all for sledging during the course of play. It's part of the game, and as far as I am concerned it is a quite justifiable tactic to test the mental strength of the opposing batsmen. But the behaviour Anderson has admitted to as they left the field and in the pavilion is simply the mindless yobbishness of a football hooligan. It's worth remembering that if any spectator had used that language against a player, official or Trent Bridge steward, under the ECB's own policy of 'no tolerance' towards abuse of its employees, that spectator would have been evicted from the ground and probably charged with a breach of the peace offence. Sounds as if Anderson was very lucky, as you say. I suspect his behaviour starts on the field as abusive sledging, and escalates from there. The umpires should step in far earlier in the proceedings, IMO. Any abuse (verbal or physical) should be stamped on by the umpires, with the threat of a formal charge being made if the behaviour is repeated. The ICC have to draw a line which players know they can't cross. Gordon Lewis' rationale for his ruling has just been published Lewis cites lack of evidence for Anderson verdict, and his point is that for any of the fairly stringent sanctions to be applied it would be essential to have clear evidence of what was, or was not, done. Without anything other than a "he said this, I did that" from both sides, with equally partisan corroboration from team-mates and team officials then he could not do anything other than to dismiss both cases. In other words, a huge waste of money and time. Who's to blame for all this? Anderson certainly takes it too far and seems to have overcome his natural introspection only too completely and without a proper grasp of when to let go. Before considering whether umpires should "do" anything, and whether or not there is a line to be crossed between sledging, abuse and threatening statements and behaviour, its worth considering that Law 42 on Fair and Unfair play is clear that the "responsibility lies with the captains for ensuring that play is conducted within the spirit and traditions of the game, as described in The Preamble - The Spirit of Cricket, as well as within the Laws". In other words, its up to Cook to be certain that his bowlers play the game hard but fair, and to be aware of the consequences of transgressing. In that context I recall the Channel 5 Highlights interview between Nicholas and Cook after the Lords defeat, and the very revealing statement by Cook that "Its not up to me to control them [the players]". The context then was the first innings bowling performance and the sequence of poor shot selection by the batsmen at the end of the match, but I remember thinking at the time this was a very telling statement about how Cook viewed the captaincy. I think that what he meant was that a Captain can exhort, plead, show by example but ultimately has no main authority over his players. That attitude is one that has crept in with the concept of the coaching/managerial supremo, and it does leave a void because the manager/coach can have no influence actually on the pitch, however much he may lay down the law in the dressing-room, and the training grounds, and the lecture theatre, and other places where they sing. If a captain no longer belives that he is the sole authority on the field, and cedes the responsibility to his bowlers to bowl as their experience tells them, and the batsmen to to do likewise, then he certainly cannot expect them to heed any admonitions about when they are going to far with their personal aggression. And that is exactly what he should do, before it becomes a matter for the umpires, the match refrees and the International Court of Justice. The captain is the supreme tactician, and a part of those tactics needs to consist of reading the way the oppoosition is reacting to the non-cricketing aspects of the contest: the personal and psychological interaction. And with a country such as India, with all the sporting and political history of colonialism, of slights and misunderstandings, of offence taken and given, that is a very big deal and needs to be considered at all times. |
|
wally
2nd XI player
Posts: 178
|
Post by wally on Aug 3, 2014 15:06:53 GMT
If true , Anderson sounds like he is exactly what he called jadeja.
Time this boorish behavior stops...all abuse and obscene insults are wrong.
Sledging is not part of the game in this context.
Management and captain need to act.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 3, 2014 15:59:25 GMT
If true , Anderson sounds like he is exactly what he called jadeja. Time this boorish behavior stops...all abuse and obscene insults are wrong. Sledging is not part of the game in this context. Management and captain need to act. Won't happen. Moores can't exercise any authority over the players as they have more power than he does. This is an ideal time for the ICC to clarify what's acceptable and what isn't, then get the umpires to enforce that on the field. Why is it so difficult to lay down and enforce a decent code of behaviour? |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Aug 3, 2014 16:46:21 GMT
Won't happen. Moores can't exercise any authority over the players as they have more power than he does. This is an ideal time for the ICC to clarify what's acceptable and what isn't, then get the umpires to enforce that on the field. Why is it so difficult to lay down and enforce a decent code of behaviour? I'm sorry if I didn't make myself quite clear in an earlier post on this subject. The umpires have various responsibilities on-field to ensure that the laws are correctly interpreted, in their opinion, and that players operate within the ambits of those laws. What is a wider responsibility, and one that has force off the pitch, into the pavilion and even by extension, into the homes of those who watch and listen and read reports, is that of the C aptain. It isn't anything to do with the ICC, the MCC, or the Great and Little Plumstead Parish Council, unless one of those bodies is prepared to claim and enforce absolute conformity from all of those playing, those officiating, and the strict control and management of statements, attittudes and postures from the time of arriving at the ground until the termination of the match. In other words, it is an issue that calls out for a little diplomacy, a little understanding, an awareness of what is done by one person and how it may be perceived by another. In that sense it is not a legally enforceable issue. At what stage does sledging become "beyond the pale"? Is it a) Doubts about parentage?, b) Adulterous expressions about the batsman's spouse?, c) Threats to remove or disarrange parts of the batsman's anatomy?. Does it cease immediately when the batsman leaves the crease or is it acceptable for the batsman's fielding or bowling activities to be mocked in turn? Should it be confined entirely to the field of play or is there a procedure under which a physical expression, such as a grimace, or the gesturing of hands as in the manufacture of a hangman's loop may be employed whilst going through the Long Room or indeed in whatever corridor or staircase leads to the dressing-rooms? Does it have extra "spice" when it is performed by a white man to a black or brown man, and if so, how should we adjust the scale of values to allow for this? Is a "nasty look" ok, but a one-fingered gesture repellent, and what is the tariff for two fingers? How close may one face be thrust toward another, and what is the distinction between a sibilant-laden statement delivered plosively and spitting in the face? There are thousands of permutations that are waiting to be invented that would place an action outside of any humanly-devised code of behaviours, and every one of those would give rise to controversy. A whole committee of the ICC could, and I'm sure would very happily be employed for a couple of years on tabulating the offences and their belikely tariffs, as well as the charging and appellate procedures. Alternatively, the match referees could, and should,use their judgement, their training and their years of experience (not to mention their proud achievements in overtaking the Doug Walters record for the number of tinnies consumed on a SYD-LHR flight) to tell the captains that they alone are responsible for the behaviour of their players for the duration of the match, on and off-field, and that they are expected to ensure that behaviour complies with the Laws and the standards expected of professional sportsmen. The referees can apply numerous sanctions to the captains, including withholding their fees and making adverse reports. If they start doing so then we might see less of this ridiculous waste of money and granstanding for the media. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 3, 2014 17:51:11 GMT
HHS, you've reinforced the point I was trying to make. If you believe that sledging is acceptable, there is no way you can define when acceptable sledging becomes unacceptable abuse. Personally, I am anti sledging; I think it's juvenile, and detracts from the spirit of the game. This macho, laddish, 'aren't I witty', 'I'm going to try and put you off' nonsense is the beginning of a slippery slope, the bottom of which we are approaching fast, as witness the Anderson episode.
If you want the captains to enforce standards of behaviour, but you still find sledging acceptable, you place an unfair responsibility on captains. If a captain asked you to explain to him when sledging became unacceptable abuse, you wouldn't be able to tell him. How do you expect him to enforce something you can't define?
All players (not just captains) need to be aware of what's acceptable, and umpires should enforce this on-field. Are there any other non-contact sports that would allow one player to try to niggle or distract an opponent during a match? Golf and tennis are two sports that have retained a civilised ethos, and sledging would be totally unacceptable in those environments. Some argue that you can't stop sledging because 'it's always been done'. If that's a good reason for preserving the status quo, then we'd still be burning witches and stoning adulterers!
|
|
