Aus fails to honor commitments to Philip's spirit: Agnew

i do see the point....
maybe they committed more when in an emotional frame of mind...and now normal services have been restored

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/13/jonathan-agnew-disappointed-australia-have-not-stopped-aggressive-sledging

Jonathan Agnew believes Australia have failed to act on their best intentions, to abandon aggressive ‘sledging’, since the death of Phillip Hughes. The BBC cricket correspondent Agnew has voiced his disappointment at what he senses was an opportunity missed to improve players’ behaviour during Australia’s home Test series against India.

Agnew quotes Australia’s captain, Michael Clarke, who subsequently sat out the majority of the India series because of a hamstring injury, as he reacted to the tragedy which took the life of his former team-mate in November. Hughes was hit on his neck, below the line of his protective helmet, by a bouncer in a Sheffield Shield match on 25 November and died of his injuries three days before his 26th birthday.

Clarke, his and Hughes’ Australia colleagues and hundreds more from the world of cricket attended a funeral service broadcast around the world.
Agnew recalls Clarke’s eulogy, in which he said: “Phillip’s spirit, which is now part of our game forever, will act as a custodian of the sport we all love.”

Advertisement

Flashpoints during Australia’s series victory over India have had echoes of similarly unsavoury incidents during last winter’s Ashes trouncing of England. Agnew is unimpressed.

“Michael Clarke said very clearly that Hughes’ memory would run through the team, and would be in the way they would play their cricket,” he told the Radio Times. “Well, I haven’t seen evidence of that. I really hoped that out of this tragedy might have come some good. “But the players haven’t behaved any better, and I think that’s a real disappointment.”

Agnew regrets that the curse of sledging remains.
“It’s all you hear on a cricket field - ‘Knock his head off, knock his head off’,” he said. “Cricket has gone too far. It shouldn’t be posturing, abusing. I know there has been a lot of bad blood between Australia and India for some years now, but it was an opportunity. I have that Michael Clarke speech tucked away ready to throw at the Australians. If this is really how you feel, then let’s see how you play.”

Agnew acknowledges the continued need for aggressive bowling, but has no time for the sledging that often goes with it. “The bouncer shouldn’t be banned. Hitting batsmen, I’m afraid, is part of the game,” he said. “But it’s the histrionics, the nonsense, the prancing, the in-your-face nastiness. It’s become accepted, and actually it’s not acceptable at all.

“The comments Michael Clarke made, I thought, summed up how people felt at the time about the way that cricket should be played. The onus is on Australia to lead the way, and for others to grasp the opportunity … we owe it to Phillip Hughes.”

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/820417.html

Rogers dismisses Agnew's accusations

I cannot stand Agnuw's "Spirit of Cricket" guff that he constantly spouts

Agnew's probably fired the Aussies up for this summers Ashes...

I think it's a cheap blow from Agnew. And an unnecessary one at that. I actually tend to agree that the series was played in the right spirits, with only the odd real flare up. It wasn't like the South Africa Aus series recently which had the pack of wolves comparison, the wolf howling, ball tampering allegations, and the spat between Steyn and Clarke on the final afternoon, which dominated headlines for like six months. It was the first ever bilateral series between the two which didn't have the end of tour drinks. Proper animosity fostered there.

I would agree though with the general assertion that the Australian side has a rather fluid view of the mystical "line". Who could forget David Warner's "We play hard but fair, but we don't cross the line and swear and at players and insult them" trite before they did exactly that to Kohli the next day.

Threatening to throw a eulogy to a dead friend and team mate back into their faces? A disgraceful and cheap shot from agnew.

Interesting that the supposed Australian "bullies" had only 2 warnings in the past year for on-field misdemeanors (both given to Warner), are constantly paraded as the poster boys for poor "cricket spirit". Meanwhile, South Africa who received 6, (2 of which were for ball tampering), England who received 4, Sri Lanka 6 and India 3 continue to whine about the nasty Aussies. Double standards or hypocrisy? Not sure which. Perhaps the decades of cricketing humiliation heaped upon them by the Aussies still rankles.

http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/333/rules-and-regulations/breaches-and-penalties/2014

Astute observation, Icu.

Thought the same but didn't even bother replying to this cheap and tasteless wind-up from Agnew.

Thanks for posting the link.

'using
language or a gesture that is
obscene, offensive of
insulting during an
international match’.

Interested to note the Aussies weren't fined for this. Guess all those swear words which filter through the stump mic come from the crowd.

Leave sledging be, as long as you can take what you dish out there should be no issues.

There are batsmen who pays no attention to it and players soon learn to leave those alone.

There are six hours of play in a day, how can you expect players not to get a bit wound or aggressive out there.

It isn't like rugby where you can go tackle a guy, you only have your words and your bowlers.

Agnew is as usual best ignored. Part of the TMS old boys club, who still thinks Test teams should play 5 bowlers and your best wicketkeeper regardless of batting ability.

To say his views on cricket are antiquated is probabaly the kindest thing you could say about him.

VTR wrote:Agnew is as usual best ignored. Part of the TMS old boys club, who still thinks Test teams should play 5 bowlers and your best wicketkeeper regardless of batting ability.

To say his views on cricket are antiquated is probabaly the kindest thing you could say about him.

I actually agree with that bit.

As for Agnew. There was no real need to have a dig, especially so close after Hughes' death.

That's an interesting one Stella. I suppose it depends on a fee things though, like your top six's batting strength (or the strength of the rest if your batting line up, since guys like AB and Dhoni bat top six). Wicketkeepers are more likely to have more chances than everybody else, so it's risky putting a mug there just to prop up your batting, as drops can be costly.

kingraf wrote:That's an interesting one Stella. I suppose it depends on a fee things though, like your top six's batting strength (or the strength of the rest if your batting line up, since guys like AB and Dhoni bat top six). Wicketkeepers are more likely to have more chances than everybody else, so it's risky putting a mug there just to prop up your batting, as drops can be costly.

Of course it depends on your team set up, and who's available. Give me two keepers. One a slightly better batter, and the other, slightly better at keeping, and I would go for the better keeper.

Everyone obviously missed Agnew's comments on his piece on the BBC website? Comments taken out of context and not really sure how you can disagree with what he says.

kingraf wrote:That's an interesting one Stella. I suppose it depends on a fee things though, like your top six's batting strength (or the strength of the rest if your batting line up, since guys like AB and Dhoni bat top six). Wicketkeepers are more likely to have more chances than everybody else, so it's risky putting a mug there just to prop up your batting, as drops can be costly.

Am not advocating a wicket-keeping mug of course, but someone who can't average say 30+ in the top 7 will simply not last long in a Test side these days. Otherwise Read and Foster would have been the England keepers for the last 15 years. Rightly or wrongly, a competent keeper who is also a good batsmen is what Test sides will go with as a minimum now.