England vs India - Second Test - Lords

First topic message reminder :

Seeming as we have such a short turnaround thought I'd stick up a thread

England have added Simon Kerrigan to the squad interestingly. I'd imagine he must be in serious contention, or else what's the point of adding another body?

If you abuse a person in crude ways, a response is just a matter of time. And no way should Anderson have continued the conversation the moment he was off the field. And getting physical, that is absolutely no go zone.

msp83 wrote:Lets not bring players who are not involved here in this context, ?

the context is the same.....ECB do not reign in their favored children.....Broad, anderson, swann, staruss etal....and so we see situations so bad as physically assaulting a player, urinating on the pitch, using the c*** word on air

msp83 wrote:Perhaps the ECB should learn a few things from the way the Australians dealt with the Warner situation. I thought they went a bit overboard in dealing with him, but at least they were being honest unlike the holier than thou hypocrites

To be fair there is a major difference between a spat in or around the field of play and an alleged assault on someone in a pub.

Its all a lot of my dad is bigger than your dad rubbish

So they squared up after a heated exchange? Jesus these are grown men not in bloomin year 6 at middle school

Pathetic from India to report it, pathetic from the ECB to respond. Both look like absolute jubblies

msp83 wrote:If you abuse a person in crude ways, a response is just a matter of time. And no way should Anderson have continued the conversation the moment he was off the field. And getting physical, that is absolutely no go zone.

Like Jadeja is the first person ever to get some crude abuse on a cricket field.

After India's Gautam Gambhir elbowed Australia's Shane Watson, the former got a ban and the latter got away with it even though he was the one who provoked the confrontation. There was a similar incident with West Indies spinner Suliman Benn in Australia. It is Anderson who started the confrontation onfield, it is he who got physical. Jadeja might get a fine, but Anderson deserves a ban if he has gone physical. No way should it be underplayed or the message sent out that anything can go in the name of sledging.

GSC wrote:I put Swamy on ignore. Seems the mods give him as much leeway as a Sri Lankan spinner on here as on the original 606.

Can you do that here, if so how?

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:Lets not bring players who are not involved here in this context, ?

the context is the same.....ECB do not reign in their favored children.....Broad, anderson, swann, staruss etal....and so we see situations so bad as physically assaulting a player, urinating on the pitch, using the c*** word on air

Really KP, you're doing yourself no favours spouting this rubbish.

Just to take your examples here. Physically assaulting a player? Which England player has done this? Anderson, you mean? So your just assuming his guilt then?

Urinating on the pitch? After the Ashes test you mean? A nothing incident for which those involved apologised.

Using the 'c' word on air? Strauss you mean? Who is employed by SKY tv not the ECB? How could the ECB discipline him for something he did while not in their employ?

msp83 wrote:After India's Gautam Gambhir elbowed Australia's Shane Watson, the former got a ban and the latter got away with it even though he was the one who provoked the confrontation. There was a similar incident with West Indies spinner Suliman Benn in Australia. It is Anderson who started the confrontation onfield, it is he who got physical. Jadeja might get a fine, but Anderson deserves a ban if he has gone physical. No way should it be underplayed or the message sent out that anything can go in the name of sledging.

So Jadeja deserves nothing for squaring up to Anderson?

And you were complaining about the hypocrisy of the ECB earlier. Some salt with my irony please waiter.

JDizzle wrote:

msp83 wrote:If you abuse a person in crude ways, a response is just a matter of time. And no way should Anderson have continued the conversation the moment he was off the field. And getting physical, that is absolutely no go zone.

Like Jadeja is the first person ever to get some crude abuse on a cricket field.

JD, things happened off the field in this case isn't it? And the important point that cannot be glossed over is that things allegedly got physical. You can't start distinguishing between a minor physical attack and a major one, that would lead to the game being completely disrepute.

Duty281 wrote:

msp83 wrote:After India's Gautam Gambhir elbowed Australia's Shane Watson, the former got a ban and the latter got away with it even though he was the one who provoked the confrontation. There was a similar incident with West Indies spinner Suliman Benn in Australia. It is Anderson who started the confrontation onfield, it is he who got physical. Jadeja might get a fine, but Anderson deserves a ban if he has gone physical. No way should it be underplayed or the message sent out that anything can go in the name of sledging.

So Jadeja deserves nothing for squaring up to Anderson?

And you were complaining about the hypocrisy of the ECB earlier. Some salt with my irony please waiter.

I said Fine Duty, he gets a fine if the ECB countercharge that came 6 days after the original complaint has any merit.

msp83 wrote:

You can't start distinguishing between a minor physical attack and a major one, that would lead to the game being completely disrepute.

He should have hit him with a bat then.

msp83 wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

msp83 wrote:If you abuse a person in crude ways, a response is just a matter of time. And no way should Anderson have continued the conversation the moment he was off the field. And getting physical, that is absolutely no go zone.

Like Jadeja is the first person ever to get some crude abuse on a cricket field.

JD, things happened off the field in this case isn't it? And the important point that cannot be glossed over is that things allegedly got physical. You can't start distinguishing between a minor physical attack and a major one, that would lead to the game being completely disrepute.

Yes, there is blame to aportion but of course you can distinguish between a minor physical attack and a major one. If Anderson took a swing at Jadeja that is completely different to Jadeja reacting to some, admittedly crude, sledging and getting in Anderson's personal space and Jimmy pushing him away.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Just to take your examples here. Physically assaulting a player? Which England player has done this? Anderson, you mean? So your just assuming his guilt then?

physical assualt....anderson allegedly did......and instead of encouraging an investigation and promising strict action if guilty...they first underplayed and then blindly defended.

I did not assume anderson guilty......I merely condemned the underplaying and blind defence by ECB

djlovesyou wrote:

msp83 wrote:

You can't start distinguishing between a minor physical attack and a major one, that would lead to the game being completely disrepute.

He should have hit him with a bat then.

The ECB, Cook and many here would have still said that it was a minor incident even then!.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Just to take your examples here. Physically assaulting a player? Which England player has done this? Anderson, you mean? So your just assuming his guilt then?

physical assualt....anderson allegedly did......and instead of encouraging an investigation and promising strict action if guilty...they first underplayed and then blindly defended.

I did not assume anderson guilty......I merely condemned the underplaying and blind defence by ECB

It surprises me how many are taking this "push" to the extreme. If Jadeja has got up close to Anderson, invading his personal space, then Anderson has every right to create a bit of space between the two. Now I'm not suggesting he pushes him to the floor, but if he were to use his hands to move Jedeja further back then that in no way deserves a ban. Unless this was an aggressive push then I don't see the point of making it such a big deal. Having played sport for long enough things don't get forgotten once you leave the playing field.

KP_fan wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Just to take your examples here. Physically assaulting a player? Which England player has done this? Anderson, you mean? So your just assuming his guilt then?

physical assualt....anderson allegedly did......and instead of encouraging an investigation and promising strict action if guilty...they first underplayed and then blindly defended.

I did not assume anderson guilty......I merely condemned the underplaying and blind defence by ECB

Anderson has denied the allegations. ECB have to back him. If it is proved that he is lying that is the time to judge the ECB's actions.

JDizzle wrote:

msp83 wrote:

JDizzle wrote:

msp83 wrote:If you abuse a person in crude ways, a response is just a matter of time. And no way should Anderson have continued the conversation the moment he was off the field. And getting physical, that is absolutely no go zone.

Like Jadeja is the first person ever to get some crude abuse on a cricket field.

JD, things happened off the field in this case isn't it? And the important point that cannot be glossed over is that things allegedly got physical. You can't start distinguishing between a minor physical attack and a major one, that would lead to the game being completely disrepute.

Yes, there is blame to aportion but of course you can distinguish between a minor physical attack and a major one. If Anderson took a swing at Jadeja that is completely different to Jadeja reacting to some, admittedly crude, sledging and getting in Anderson's personal space and Jimmy pushing him away.

If it comes down to adjudicating whether it was a hard slap or a little pat, a gentle push or a hard shove, we are getting into difficult and impossible domains. Nothing physical, that is the least check that is needed on the nonsense of legitimized abused in the name of sledging.

Cricket is not a contact sport, and that's how it should remain.

msp83 wrote:

djlovesyou wrote:

msp83 wrote:

You can't start distinguishing between a minor physical attack and a major one, that would lead to the game being completely disrepute.

He should have hit him with a bat then.

The ECB, Cook and many here would have still said that it was a minor incident even then!.

That's conjecture based on your own prejudices.

You, however, would treat it exactly the same and would be calling for a 2-4 match ban for Anderson as minor 'assaults' should be treated identically to major ones.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Just to take your examples here. Physically assaulting a player? Which England player has done this? Anderson, you mean? So your just assuming his guilt then?

physical assualt....anderson allegedly did......and instead of encouraging an investigation and promising strict action if guilty...they first underplayed and then blindly defended.

I did not assume anderson guilty......I merely condemned the underplaying and blind defence by ECB

Anderson has denied the allegations. ECB have to back him. If it is proved that he is lying that is the time to judge the ECB's actions.

OK

hampo171 wrote:It surprises me how many are taking this "push" to the extreme. If Jadeja has got up close to Anderson, invading his personal space, then Anderson has every right to create a bit of space between the two. Now I'm not suggesting he pushes him to the floor, but if he were to use his hands to move Jedeja further back then that in no way deserves a ban. Unless this was an aggressive push then I don't see the point of making it such a big deal. Having played sport for long enough things don't get forgotten once you leave the playing field.

The problem is, who determines whether the push was aggressive or not? There is the problem in legitimizing physical contact in the name of sledging.

I remember the Benn incident. Is it that much different? Also, there's still no evidence either way... Best to wait, otherwise there will be serious egg on face on one side, yes? Let's relax guys.

msp83 wrote:Cricket is not a contact sport, and that's how it should remain.

Well let's stop bowlers bowling bouncers and batsmen hitting the ball hard whilst we're at it then.

Good lord I've seen some rubbish spouted on here today. Two guys, got agitated and had a confrontation. It happens in sport for gods sake. If Anderson had full on punched him it'd be a different matter

msp83 wrote:

hampo171 wrote:It surprises me how many are taking this "push" to the extreme. If Jadeja has got up close to Anderson, invading his personal space, then Anderson has every right to create a bit of space between the two. Now I'm not suggesting he pushes him to the floor, but if he were to use his hands to move Jedeja further back then that in no way deserves a ban. Unless this was an aggressive push then I don't see the point of making it such a big deal. Having played sport for long enough things don't get forgotten once you leave the playing field.

The problem is, who determines whether the push was aggressive or not? There is the problem in legitimizing physical contact in the name of sledging.

You can tell the difference between an aggressive push and just creating some space between two people, it would be quite clear.

kingraf wrote:I remember the Benn incident. Is it that much different? Also, there's still no evidence either way... Best to wait, otherwise there will be serious egg on face on one side, yes? Let's relax guys.

More than the specifics of the incident, what riles me is the attempt to legitimize physical contact in the name of sledging. Can't be allowed, just can't be. Doesn't matter whether it is Anderson, Gambhir, Benn or anyone.

Cricket really is ridiculously up its own arse sometimes

[quote="Olly"]

msp83 wrote:
Good lord I've seen some rubbish spouted on here today. Two guys, got agitated and had a confrontation. It happens in sport for gods sake. If Anderson had full on punched him it'd be a different matter

if he has even pushed him or manhandled him....he is still gone as per the laws
If Jadeja pushed him or manhandled him even in retaliation...then Jadeja is also gone per the laws

hampo171 wrote:

msp83 wrote:

hampo171 wrote:It surprises me how many are taking this "push" to the extreme. If Jadeja has got up close to Anderson, invading his personal space, then Anderson has every right to create a bit of space between the two. Now I'm not suggesting he pushes him to the floor, but if he were to use his hands to move Jedeja further back then that in no way deserves a ban. Unless this was an aggressive push then I don't see the point of making it such a big deal. Having played sport for long enough things don't get forgotten once you leave the playing field.

The problem is, who determines whether the push was aggressive or not? There is the problem in legitimizing physical contact in the name of sledging.

You can tell the difference between an aggressive push and just creating some space between two people, it would be quite clear.

Won't be the easiest of tasks in the middle of a right royal spat. It is the context that is important. Anderson wasn't navigating a crowded pathway and making a bit of space for himself to move about, it was continuation of an onfield spat. The perceptions matter a lot here.

KP_fan wrote:

Olly wrote:

msp83 wrote:  
Good lord I've seen some rubbish spouted on here today. Two guys, got agitated and had a confrontation. It happens in sport for gods sake. If Anderson had full on punched him it'd be a different matter

if he has even pushed him or manhandled him....he is still gone as per the laws
If Jadeja pushed him or manhandled him even in retaliation...then Jadeja is also gone per the laws

The ECB, as yet, hasn't brought such a charge on Jadeja. Perhaps they'll do it in the next week or so.

KP_fan wrote:

Olly wrote:

msp83 wrote:  
Good lord I've seen some rubbish spouted on here today. Two guys, got agitated and had a confrontation. It happens in sport for gods sake. If Anderson had full on punched him it'd be a different matter

if he has even pushed him or manhandled him....he is still gone as per the laws
If Jadeja pushed him or manhandled him even in retaliation...then Jadeja is also gone per the laws

I don't care who's pushed who quite frankly, its complete rubbish and nothing but playground antics you'd be ashamed to see between kids. If there was a full blown altercation its a different matter, but it seems they've had words and might've laid a hand on each other. I can't believe its even a story, and I can't believe the ECB have gone boobie for tat and complained against Jadeja

There is also no evidence that it was an aggressive action though like KPF keeps trying to make out. For all we know it could have been Jadeja getting in his face and him merely pushing him back, in my opinion if Jadeja has done that first then he is in the wrong and should not get a lighter punishment. But we simply don't know.

Both their 'punishments' should be to be told 'now now lads, lets not be silly now' and be told to get on with playing cricket.

Talk of bans is stupid.

Olly wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Olly wrote:

msp83 wrote:  
Good lord I've seen some rubbish spouted on here today. Two guys, got agitated and had a confrontation. It happens in sport for gods sake. If Anderson had full on punched him it'd be a different matter

if he has even pushed him or manhandled him....he is still gone as per the laws
If Jadeja pushed him or manhandled him even in retaliation...then Jadeja is also gone per the laws

I don't care who's pushed who quite frankly, its complete rubbish and nothing but playground antics you'd be ashamed to see between kids. If there was a full blown altercation its a different matter, but it seems they've had words and might've laid a hand on each other. I can't believe its even a story, and I can't believe the ECB have gone boobie for tat and complained against Jadeja

it doesn't matter whether you care or not.
Game is run by not what individuals think but rather by the laws of ICC
your saying so is still a POV......of an individual

when ECB talk in the same tone...then it is sad and shocking....for they have to operate and act under the ICC's legal framework.

The likes of Michael Holding and Curtly Ambrose took wickets and the likes of Sunil Gavaskar and Geoff Boycott scored runs without abusing the mothers, wives and sisters of opposition players or without pushing and shoving them around. So any suggestion that sledging and getting physical in the name of it is an integral part of the game is absolute nonsense.

msp83 wrote:The likes of Michael Holding and Curtly Ambrose took wickets and the likes of Sunil Gavaskar and Geoff Boycott scored runs without abusing the mothers, wives and sisters of opposition players or without pushing and shoving them around. So any suggestion that sledging and getting physical in the name of it is an integral part of the game is absolute nonsense.

Yeah Boycott only got done for assaulting a woman 

Holding and Ambrose?

Yeah, those guys never did any sledging, haha.

Olly wrote:

msp83 wrote:The likes of Michael Holding and Curtly Ambrose took wickets and the likes of Sunil Gavaskar and Geoff Boycott scored runs without abusing the mothers, wives and sisters of opposition players or without pushing and shoving them around. So any suggestion that sledging and getting physical in the name of it is an integral part of the game is absolute nonsense.

Yeah Boycott only got done for assaulting a woman 

yeah maan...that was on the pitch / in pavillion and when under ECB contract? quiet a relevant analogy to anderson's alleged crime

djlovesyou wrote:Holding and Ambrose?

Yeah, those guys never did any sledging, haha.

yeah maan...sledging...that is what Anderson has been levied a level-3 charge for ???
apt comparison

Your mate was talking about sledging. Keep up Swamy.

djlovesyou wrote:Your mate was talking about sledging. Keep up Swamy.

"your mate" ??

but you know the context of discussion ??

"Swamy" ??

Haha, have a good night champ. Keep up the good work.

Name calling posters who differ from the standard opinion, stubbornly refusing to address the contents of the post, that has been the overwhelming style of response by most here.

Not quite surprising with the amount of rubbish posted on this thread.

djlovesyou wrote:Both their 'punishments' should be to be told 'now now lads, lets not be silly now' and be told to get on with playing cricket.

Talk of bans is stupid.

Pretty much agree with that. Very much seems a massively inflated fuss.

The only comment I would add is that two strong captains each with an ear to the ground would have ensured this ended immediately as the damp squib it was rather than allowing it to escalate into what threatens to be an inferno fuelled by hysteria and counter claim.

msp83 wrote:Name calling posters who differ from the standard opinion, stubbornly refusing to address the contents of the post, that has been the overwhelming style of response by most here.

its called the ad hominem syndrome.
and is the first sign of the other guy....at loss of an argument.

btw no one here is stupid enough to not know what has happened in the anderson / jadeja case.

Their best face saving argument " aah its a small thing, not required ICC, let it blow away"

If the foot was on other shoe....ie Jadeja charged the same guys would have been invoking ICC laws, penal clauses and upholding the spirit of this pristine game.  

Moving on from Swamy.



Looks like the neighbours borrowed the lawnmower.

Easy decision to bowl first on this pitch, especially with tomorrow due to be roasting.

GSC wrote:Easy decision to bowl first on this pitch, especially with tomorrow due to be roasting.

Huh??

Imo, you set out to bat today and well into tomorrow.

Advice from Cyril Washbrook, Lancs' first professional captain in the 1950s, to David Lloyd when he took on the role twenty years later: "You have two choices on winning the toss. Bat. Or think about it and then bat."