posted Aug 1, 2007

subkot clearly has only a precarious hold on reality and is one of the many people currently “contributing” whose views can be ignored, Pearlsaswinger. I wouldn’t bother with a put-down either. It would simply be a waste of effort.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 1, 2007

DL..do you think 606 should publish the Laws of Cricket or should it be required reading before entering?

Having failed miserably to make it as a quickie my Club "sponsored" me and about 6 other guys to take our Umpires exams which we duly passed and having had to pack up with "sportsmans groin" I now umpire on the County League panel and done a few rep games. Its not an easy job, and when the pros get involved the whole game takes on a new dimension in terms of commenst.banter and aggression.

Had one bad one to date. All tee'd off and got very very nasty indeed. after being threatened,assaulted by having a cricket ball deliberately thrown at me nad having a player stand refusing to walk and arguing with me on the pitch, I had no recourse but to report the Club.

The player who desented got 6 weeks and a £80 fine and all the teams at their Club docked 8 points per team and a written warning that the League would not tolerate any such action.

Three months later it all kicks off again with the same Club against another side and they are currently awaiting the full County Committees vote.They could be thrown out of the League and rightly so...Cricket must play by the laws and no favour givem. Its tough but unless you have umpires and offials there will be no decent sport anywhere if it carries on...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 1, 2007

"The simple fact of the matter is that the theory that Sreesanth’s beamer was unintentional does not fit in with the rest of his disgraceful, petulant, childish behaviour, ks1967. Of course, the intention, or lack of it, will never be proved, but Sreesanth stands condemned in many peoples’ eyes. Far more than think Jones’ motives were dubious."

DL, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Yes, Sreesanth did himself no favours by barging into Vaughan - thereby making all his subsequent actions suspect. But his bowling was awful and out of control. Just as Harmison bowled a ridiculous wide, so out of control was he, it could be said that Sreesanth lost control with the beamer and his overstepping. Bowling wides is not the only form of loss of control.

Whatever it is, he was fined and apologized and has only himself to blame. He tarnished an otherwise well-behaved Indian team - giving England and its fans and media ammunition to claim that India and England are equally badly behaved, when England began this boorishness at Lord's.

What is disappointing is Vaughan's (and David Graveney) reactions to their team's transgressions. England is not taking any responsibility for its own disgraceful, petulant and childish behaviour. Has anyone owned up to putting jellybeans on the pitch? Look at Collingwood's poor response. At least Sreesanth's behaviour, bad as it was, was out in the open for everyone to see. He had nowhere to hide.

Vaughan actually avoids telling the truth and claims the jelly beans were left there, when new ones did reappear. Coming after Vaughan's recent claim that he never said certain things about Flintoff and then had to admit that he was embarassed to be wrong after the newspaper produced proof - and Vaughan actually said something like "I know I am wrong since the newspaper produced evidence I did actuallly say that." Amazing. The newspaper had to produce proof of something he said before he apologized for claiming he had never said it. Is his memory that bad? He's a wonderful batsman, but his off-field comments are a bit dubious at times.

England will go on ad nauseum about Sreesanth, the toss (despite the fact that England should be able to cope in home conditions they are much more familiar with better than India no matter what the toss result was), etc. etc. etc. and India will naturally emphasize the jelly beans and the constant, mindless attempts at sledging and chattering, beginning at Lord's. It's only natural each side and their fans will emphasize different things.

For those who say sledging is part and parcel of the spirit of cricket, then why should the batsman bear the brunt of it? Why shouldn't the batsman at the other end be allowed to sledge the bowler as he runs up and break his concentration or mentally disintegrate him? Isn't that the point of sledging a batsman? Didn't Matt Prior continue to annoy Karthik even as Karthik was in his stance and ready to bat? So if you're ok with sledging batsmen, I think batsmen should be allowed to sledge bowlers as they're running up to bowl.

So the English batsmen can call Sreesanth "Harry Potter" as he runs up and the Indian batsmen can call Tremlett "Lurch" or Sidebottom "Madam".

Finally, to those who go on about Indian aggression being "primal", I think it was Matt Prior who said that England goes onto the field to "hunt in a pack." Can't get any more primal than that. Only problem is, this is the first time I've heard of hunting with jelly beans

Looking forward to a great contest at The Oval, with edge but with no more shenanigans from anyone.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 1, 2007

“What is disappointing is Vaughan's (and David Graveney) reactions to their team's transgressions.”

ks1967, have you considered the possibility that the whole affair has been blown up out of all proportion by the media and millions of people, yourself included have fallen for it hook, line and sinker? It sells newspapers and gets people glued to their TVs and radios, you know.

It is perfectly possible that Vaughan’s and Graveney’s reactions are entirely honest. It would be nice to say that about Sreesanth’s overstepping the crease by about a yard!

I too hope that the Oval test is not overshadowed by such silliness.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 1, 2007

DL,

At least be fair. England fans and media, including yourself (given the number of comments I've seen from you about this is not innocent in blowing this out of proportion, especially about the toss. Yes it gave India and advantage. But come on, this is England, where the home team should be able to cope with the conditions better. And the ball didn't exactly stop swinging when India batted. Look at Sidebottom's excellent performance.

Graveney talks about bad behaviour on both sides and then proceeds to only mention specifically Sreesanth's transgressions. Likewise some of the articles in English papers.

Just as you don't think Sreesanth's beamer was innocent, I don't think there was anything innocent about the jelly beans. As I said, at least Sreesanth has nowhere to hide and has to face up to his transgressions. Concerning the jelly beans, England have not done so and Vaughan's lying about it doesn't help. His and Graveney's remarks about how they haven't overstepped any bounds might sound honest from their point of view if they truly believe such childishness is within the bounds of the game. If Sreesanth's behaviour is not kosher, neither is England's. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You and I both know that if India had put jelly beans, England would have been all over it. It's good to see Indian/English journalists at cricinfo and some British journalists like Christopher Martin-Jenkins of The Times and some in The Independent and one each in The Guardian/The Telegraph provide some really fair coverage of these incidents and The Tests. I think many at the BBC and at The Guardian/Telegraph could learn a thing or two from these guys on how to report on a match without being myopic or downright biased.

I think I'm being rather fair in pointing out that both sides will emphasize whatever shows the other in a worse light and whatever shows themselves in a good light. I just don't like the double standards such as calling Indian aggressive responses to England as "primal" and England's aggression as "premeditated strategy". England are not self-appointed guardians over what is and isn't appropriate in cricket. And I agree with the English journalist who said the fact that it's premeditated is actually more worrisome and cause for concern. See, no different than Sreesanth's premeditated beamer (in your eyes)?

Anyways, I think we've beaten this topic to death (although it has been a subject of great mirth between myself and one of my best friends, who is English). A victory or draw for India is what I hope for. For England, even a drawn series is a bit of a defeat, I think, on home soil ( just as England drew the series in India was really a defeat for us). But being an Indian supporter, I know too well, that though our team has the second best away Test record since 2000 behind Australia, we are very inconsistent. So I'm not taking anything for granted, nor am I gloating.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 1, 2007

“…Vaughan's lying about it doesn't help.”

That’s a serious allegation, ks1967. Do you have the evidence to back it up?

Home or away, favourable bowling conditions are favourable bowling conditions. The importance of them does not have to be artificially exaggerated and talking about the weather does not sell papers. Jelly beans, apparently, do.

I notice, by the way, you’ve had little to say on Sreesanth’s over-stepping by almost a yard.

A drawn series or a defeat for England is really neither here nor there. OK, it won’t look good in the record books long after the weather has been forgotten, but it would just have to be put down to bad luck. It’s no cause to complain, though, because we got plenty of good luck in 2005.

Best of luck at the Oval. It’s been a pleasure, ks1967.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 1, 2007

I think we have dine enough chest thumping and debating on all this, time to move on, really can't wait till these two teams go in for the Oval scrap! Wonder is the toss again will be crucial

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 1, 2007

"That’s a serious allegation, ks1967. Do you have the evidence to back it up?"

You're right. Mea Culpa. I should have said "allegedly lying" or I think he's lying (or more charitably, backing up his boys no matter what, guess that's his job) based on evidence on hand - Zaheer's reaction, the umpires having a word with the English players, camera shots of jelly beans on the outfield, Collingwoods's response (not quite a denial is it? Almost too cheeky) etc.

You say Sreesanth's beamer/overstepping is likely to be intentional because of his earlier behavior. Fair enough. Likewise, I think Vaughan has a propensity to not quite tell the truth based on his earlier behaviour, especially over those Flintoff comments. He was caught redhanded by the newspaper proof and had to apologize

That's why I'm glad Sreesanth had nowhere to hide. Neither he nor Dravid could make excuses for itn and he had to take his medicine. With sledging, jelly beans, it's different. I think from now on, the audience and viewers should be able to hear everything that's said on the field. That might either serve to shut up the more garrulous ones stricken with verbal diarrhoea or force them to at least make clever quips and use them sparingly. Then we, the viewers, get to rate all the sledging and give a prize to the most witty one and one for the most lame one. Imagine the fun!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 1, 2007

"Best of luck at the Oval. It’s been a pleasure, ks1967."

Likewise. Best of luck to England (and despite my comments on Vaughan's statements, he's a pleasure to watch and a decent fellow).

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 1, 2007

Hmm. From The Telegraph:

"England are considering asking for the volume to be turned down on stump microphones to prevent their verbal aggression setting a bad example to cricket followers.

Viewers of Sky's coverage of the last two Tests against India will have heard England trying to unsettle opposition batsmen with regular chit-chat.

Captain Michael Vaughan has insisted the sledging policy is nothing more than gamesmanship and stressed they had "not said anything untoward", but they are still concerned about the example it may set to youngsters watching at home."

So, if nothing untoward is being said, why ask for the stump microphones to be turned off? If nothing untoward is being said, the kids will hear nothing untoward. Or does it make it easier to deny that something was said if the microphones are turned off?

add comment | complain about this comment