BBC Home

Explore the BBC

334 comments

user rating: 4 star

Jelly beans and big mouths

Test cricket England
by Ballscuffer (U5977782) 31 July 2007
comment on the article

I'm an England fan and am concerned about the recent attitude of the team, especially after listening to a podcast of Peter Moores being interviewed by Pat Gibson.

I have always thought that cricket was about batting, bowling and fielding better than the opposition. It seems though that the manager and certain players, notably Prior and Collingwood, have forgotten this. They seem to confuse playing aggressively with childish tricks involving sweets (how that one backfired!) and constant verbal abuse.

I would far prefer the team to concentrate on creating a hostile atmosphere through top level performances than by getting sidetracked in this way. If this current obsession with playing cricket with the mouth continues, I don't see England ever getting close to their aim of being the top Test-playing team.

Does anyone else feel this way too? I have, as you'll notice, avoided any reference to sporting values - a whole topic of its own.

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own
comment by madoody (U9011990)

posted Aug 6, 2007

my backside that it was a misunderstanding, i'm not even indian and i was cheering india on, hahaha

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by jgaryh (U6939353)

posted Aug 6, 2007

Hee hee!! The fact that I got Priors age wrong (he certainly looks 28, and the rest) shows that I aren't hooked on statistics at all. A batting average of 37 against 32 in 1st class matches isn't anything amazing, so I'm yet to be convinced there, and 5 per innings will soon be offset and more by missed chances and byes. A ton against the worst Windies team ever is hardly tree-pulling either.
As for the byes - well they weren't 4 oddities, or desperately bad balls that were 'unkeepable'. They were poor anticipation and footwork by the stumper. Look...the guy where's a flamin' helmet stood up to Panesar...hardly the mark of a man assured of his ability to get his gloves in the right place.
Eventually it was the great Gerraint's glovework which was scruffy and shoddy and put too much pressure on his batting, which ultimately crumbled because his repeated failure behind the stumps got too much for him. If you can't bowl at test standard, you don't get in the test team (barring Anderson/Mahmood). If you can't bat at test standard, you don't get in the test team. So it follows, that if you can't keep wicket to test standard, you shouldn't be in the test team.
And I aren't just rubbishing the rest to champion Read's cause (his immaculate glovework and big tons this year will do that). If Foster et al are class stumpers then lets have a look, but lets not have to put up with the inadequacies of motor mouth.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 6, 2007

Look...the guy where's a flamin' helmet stood up to Panesar...hardly the mark of a man assured of his ability to get his gloves in the right place.
--------
Did you see what happened to Dinesh Ramdin standing up at the stumps? He was hardly facing a spinner of Panesar's quality. Virtually ALL keepers wear a helmet standing up so that is indicative of nothing!

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by dubby49 (U9297071)

posted Aug 6, 2007

Prior wouldn't last long in a court of law.

He first says "When drinks are brought out, we are also given sweets to keep our energy levels up and I think a couple dropped near the wicket." That implies it was an accident.

He later says "It started off being a joke but it's been taken in completely the wrong context." That confirms it was deliberate.

So which was it - an accident or deliberate.

The general defence has been that it was a joke. Some of the players - Collingwood, Cook etc have added to the general hilarity by their witty comments - "I think he preferred pink to blue".

MV refuses to elaborate on the joke, nor have I seen anyone else do so. If it was funny, why keep it yourselves guys -share it with the rest of the world so we can laugh along too.

Incidentally, Zaheer complained that after sweeping the offending beans of the pitch, he found some more soon after. An accident - hmmm.

What's in store for the next game. It would be delightful if it was cleanly contested without any of the ridiculous behaviour from players on both sides.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 7, 2007

I DONT BELIEVE IT! What some of you are saying is crazy. Its the wicket keepers job to keep the communication going and to give a bit of banter ton the batting team it always has and always will be a part of the sport me knowing this because i am a wicket keeper not just someone that sits down and watches the sport and claims to be an expert im not an expert your not an expert the only people who can realy call themselves experts are the PROFESSIONAL umpires. And as far as the jelly bean row gos the only people who truely know what happened are the players themselves and Matt Prior has said that it was just one big misunderstanding.

So to recap I think that there is no such thing as a big mouth in cricket until the ball is being bowled or the bowlers run up has commenced. And the Jellygate incident has nothing to do with us and it has been over speculated by the media and the batsman at the time who i think was Zaheer Kahn but im not sure.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 8, 2007

I have to say that I am a person relieved of much tension.

Michael Vaughn, a capable cricketer and an OK captain, has all but conceded that his team behaved poorly in the last test. The earlier defiance was gone and he said the English team came very close to the lines of unaccepttable behavior. Dravid was gracious and graceful in typical Indian style.

I believe the British media is responsible for having forged this change in attitude on the part of Vaughan. Excepting unreasonable people like Botham and Hussain, the English press showed a lot of honesty and integrity in attacking the Jellybean and related nonsense by English players. The Indian media was a model of restraint all throughout and did not portray Sreesanth as a hero but he was ticked of by many.

This test may depend on the toss and we know it ahead of time so let us not moan about it.

I hope the English fans on this forum show a little more objectivity in the future.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 8, 2007

I think you need to be a little bit more objective yourself.

Yes, the jellybean incident was silly, but don't forget some of the behaviour of the Indian players. The beamer, the 2 yard no ball, the shoulder barge and the waving of the bat.

Don't get me wrong, I think both teams were pushing it, but don't try and take the high ground on this, both captains did what they had to do, say it was a bit silly and move on. Nobody came out of that game any better than the other.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 9, 2007

The English media desrves accolades for being objective and showing sensitivity, and the Indian team and media for restraint is what I would say.

I certainly overreacted a little but kept within boundaries of honesty.

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by U8358008

posted Aug 9, 2007

Both sides are evenly matched hence the verbals and Jellybeans to gain a slight advantage...India winning the toss again was crucial and i fear England may be out of contention by end of day 1 , and sadly no amount of boiled sweets is gonna get us a series tying victory..erm

add comment | complain about this comment

comment by Steve (U9350887)

posted Jan 9, 2008

Well this thread makes for interesting reading. For a moment there, I thought only the Australian team was guilty of sledging and poor form.

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.

RATE THIS ARTICLE

Rate Breakdown

  • 5 56.76%
    21 votes
  • 4 21.62%
    8 votes
  • 3 5.41%
    2 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 16.22%
    6 votes

average rating:
4.03 from 37 votes