England's Summer of Cricket 2021

First topic message reminder :

2nd June-14th June: Two tests v New Zealand

23rd June-26th June: Three T20s v Sri Lanka
29th June-4th July: Three ODIs v Sri Lanka

8th July-13th July: Three ODIs v Pakistan
16th July-20th July: Three T20s V Pakistan

4th August-14th September: Five Tests v India

Robinson's tweets were not acceptable at the time, and they aren't acceptable now. Reading them do I think they read like a teenager's stupid "jokes" rather than anything more malicious - my feeling is they do but I accept is a lot easier for me to say that given I am not the target of any of them. They still deserve a punishment, but it is more palatable for me to believe he has matured as a human being since them given that is how they read - but again, easy for me to say.

The ECB are certainly handling this in a way to be obviously seen like they are handling it and doing something. The tweets are out in the open, the only debatable thing left is whether Robinson has changed and matured and yet he has been sent away. Not sure what dragging it out achieves.

If Robinson has matured, as we all hope, then he has an opportunity to go away and I am sure the PCA will be able to provide him with the support to find a genuine way to show and prove he has changed rather than the (insert number) Test ban that is coming.

And yes, the Craig Overton thing was a blatant cover up by the ECB. Multiple witnesses heard what COverton said, including the umpire, and yet he was only charged with a Level 1 offence which is entry level and just for generic abuse. He gave an uncomfortable interview with Wisden a few weeks ago where he basically denied it again and said he was mates with Azhar Ali so how could he be racist which was concerning.

king_carlos wrote:I echo Dolphs response.

The tweets are bigoted. Are there many for more abominable examples of bigotry out there, absolutely. The tweets are still a form of bigotry though.

Root and the ECB didn't hang Robinson out to dry. His own moronic behaviour, albeit in the past, has hung Robinson out to dry.

I strongly felt at the time that Overton's comments deserved far greater sanction. A two match ban for accumulative offences with that incident simply being reported as a level 1 offence was disgusting. Given that the umpire and Yardy as well as Zaidi heard the same thing Overton's claim that he didn't say it never washed. If that happened now, with greater focus on these issues, then I wager Overton would face a far harsher and deserved punishment. Which in some ways is progress.

They absolutely hung him out to dry. First, they forced him to apologise in front of a world audience for something he probably didn't even remember doing. Then it's announced he'll be suspended and investigated which, again, is another sporting headline. Once the investigation concludes and, little doubt, makes an example of him, there'll be another headline.

This is humiliation on a grand scale. A gross overreaction for a handful of tweets that weren't even written recently.

I'm not so sure the tweets are bigoted, but I suppose we disagree here, and I suppose it depends on how seriously you believe they were written.

Soul Requiem wrote:Trial by media is not progress.

Just empty words

Joking isn't a defence to this. It will be taken into account and the punishment different because of it. But it's no justification and I doubt the people who have to live with this sh*t all the time particularly care about. 

He's not gonna be able to be an international cricketer for a small period of time. The outrage over that is hilarious and such a sign of privilege. 

He had to come out and apologise. He plays for an international team, they are an institution and have to show they are reacting. So none of that really matter. I hope he was uncomfortable, I bet you he isn't as annoyed as you are either. He's learning something that everyone else needs to learn too. 

Replacing him with Overton is embarrassing. He should have been punished much more. 

Again, his punishment is going to be missing out on a test, maybe a few. It's not quite a big deal.

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I echo Dolphs response.

The tweets are bigoted. Are there many for more abominable examples of bigotry out there, absolutely. The tweets are still a form of bigotry though.

Root and the ECB didn't hang Robinson out to dry. His own moronic behaviour, albeit in the past, has hung Robinson out to dry.

I strongly felt at the time that Overton's comments deserved far greater sanction. A two match ban for accumulative offences with that incident simply being reported as a level 1 offence was disgusting. Given that the umpire and Yardy as well as Zaidi heard the same thing Overton's claim that he didn't say it never washed. If that happened now, with greater focus on these issues, then I wager Overton would face a far harsher and deserved punishment. Which in some ways is progress.

They absolutely hung him out to dry. First, they forced him to apologise in front of a world audience for something he probably didn't even remember doing. Then it's announced he'll be suspended and investigated which, again, is another sporting headline. Once the investigation concludes and, little doubt, makes an example of him, there'll be another headline.

This is humiliation on a grand scale. A gross overreaction for a handful of tweets that weren't even written recently.

I'm not so sure the tweets are bigoted, but I suppose we disagree here, and I suppose it depends on how seriously you believe they were written.

What was the alternative though with a s*** storm brewing over Robinson's own actions though?

They could ignore it completely - which would have been laughable.

They could send another player out to cop it for Robinson - which would have been laughable.

They could send Robinson out unprepared and tell him to wing it - which would have been hanging him out to dry.

They could send Robinson out prepared to respond to his own sausage up - which they did.

Giving him a scripted apology seems clearly the best of the bad options available. The reason lots of bad options were available was Robinson's tweets. Whilst them being 9 years ago when he was 18 does need to be consider, it doesn't change the fact he posted them, so it's his own fault he's in this mess.

I just don't see how the situation Robinson is in is anyone's fault but his own.

As for it hinging on how seriously he meant the stuff. Racism and misogyny aren't funny.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:
Replacing him with Overton is embarrassing. He should have been punished much more. 

Whilst I have stood behind the rest and rotation policies as a whole due to the absurd schedule England have amidst covid I do strongly feel that Woakes should be back in the squad for T2.

Buttler and Surran being rested I understand more as they played Tests over the winter and will almost certainly be involved in the T20 World Cup which will come off the back of 5 Tests against India.

Woakes hasn't played a Test since last summer, isn't in the T20 squad* and would improve the side for T2 massively. His consistency with the ball and depth he adds at 8 with the bat is really needed.

*I personally think he should be at the T20 World Cup due to the issues with our bowling attack and how improved he is as a white ball bowler since his last T20i. He's one of the unsung heroes of the CWC winning side. Very few are consistently so good in the powerplay and his death bowling has come a long way.

king_carlos wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:I echo Dolphs response.

The tweets are bigoted. Are there many for more abominable examples of bigotry out there, absolutely. The tweets are still a form of bigotry though.

Root and the ECB didn't hang Robinson out to dry. His own moronic behaviour, albeit in the past, has hung Robinson out to dry.

I strongly felt at the time that Overton's comments deserved far greater sanction. A two match ban for accumulative offences with that incident simply being reported as a level 1 offence was disgusting. Given that the umpire and Yardy as well as Zaidi heard the same thing Overton's claim that he didn't say it never washed. If that happened now, with greater focus on these issues, then I wager Overton would face a far harsher and deserved punishment. Which in some ways is progress.

They absolutely hung him out to dry. First, they forced him to apologise in front of a world audience for something he probably didn't even remember doing. Then it's announced he'll be suspended and investigated which, again, is another sporting headline. Once the investigation concludes and, little doubt, makes an example of him, there'll be another headline.

This is humiliation on a grand scale. A gross overreaction for a handful of tweets that weren't even written recently.

I'm not so sure the tweets are bigoted, but I suppose we disagree here, and I suppose it depends on how seriously you believe they were written.

What was the alternative though with a s*** storm brewing over Robinson's own actions though?

They could ignore it completely - which would have been laughable.

They could send another player out to cop it for Robinson - which would have been laughable.

They could send Robinson out unprepared and tell him to wing it - which would have been hanging him out to dry.

They could send Robinson out prepared to respond to his own sausage up - which they did.

Giving him a scripted apology seems clearly the best of the bad options available. The reason lots of bad options were available was Robinson's tweets. Whilst them being 9 years ago when he was 18 does need to be consider, it doesn't change the fact he posted them, so it's his own fault he's in this mess.

I just don't see how the situation Robinson is in is anyone's fault but his own.

As for it hinging on how seriously he meant the stuff. Racism and misogyny aren't funny.

Yes, ignoring it would have been a better option. Who really cares about those juvenile tweets written by an 18-year-old, who is now 27? The ECB could have easily said it wasn't in their remit to 'deal' with such matters; and if Robinson wanted to apologise, actually apologise, of his own volition then he could have done so in his own time.

There also wasn't a s**t storm brewing, unless you mean the tedious media circus, which is usually best ignored as they love a bit of manufactured controversy.

A scripted apology is the worst option, with no actual contrition and the player in question being humiliated, as well as a strange precedent being set.

And such jokes aren't funny to you, or to me for that matter, but humour is subjective, not objective. Offensive humour does appeal to some people.

People who have to deal with racism and misogyny in their daily lives probably cared about tweets containing racism and misogyny. I imagine many also would have cared if the ECB had just breezed over it. Those same people are likely happy that they've taken a hard stance.

Ignoring it would have been both futile and trying to ignore the problem in my opinion.

Honestly reckon the ECB has gone overboard on this Robinson issue for fear of appearing insincere with their (commendable) anti racism stance. Suspending Robinson (even for just one match) for puerile unfunny and rather unpleasant tweets made in his late teenage years strikes me as a bit of an overkill. He has suffered public embarrassment at a time when he would otherwise have been generally lauded for a fine debut performance ; has apologised for his youthful bad behaviour ; and as far as we know hasn't displayed any signs in recent years that he actually holds racist views  (one might suspect that as he shares a county dressing room with more than one mixed race team mate any such issues would have come to the surface) : surely that should have been enough to settle the matter ?
Comparisons with the Overton business are not really valid.  That was actually cricket related and contemporary , hence a matter that warranted disciplinary action by the governing body. This - however offensive the tweets might be to many - predates Robinson's employment by many years so does not seem to me a matter that comes within their jurisdiction.
I am aware that employers these days routinely check a potential employee's social media before hiring. However I am not sure many would be looking to take action against a satisfactory staff member if some unattractive but less than actually criminal behaviour from ten years ago were suddenly revealed...the difference here of course is the public nature of a sportsman's work.

In other words this (suspension and "investigation") is a PR stunt. I guess many will applaud but I'm not one of them.

Something about needing to be without sin to cast the first stone...

Anyway the Test Match is done ... finish was a bit of a limp lettuce after Williamson's apparently bolder than usual declaration briefly held faint hopes of some late tension ; but considering a full day had been lost to the weather and the best part of another session to appalling over rates by both sides , a result was always unlikely. I won't blame the pitch -although it was a bit flatter than we'd all like on day one there was enough there for bowlers throughout to keep batsmen honest ,and five full days would probably have produced a winner.

Winner would likely have been NZ : they certainly looked the better side overall , though winning the toss probably helped them quite a lot. Like England , they are strong in pace bowling - and devoid of spin threat. But their batting looks better in execution , depth and potential - which presents this England team ( voluntarily deprived of a number of good alternative selections) with a serious problem for match two : how can they actually strengthen the side ?
Robinson also joining the ranks of the unselectable isn't a disaster for the bowling as they have plenty of pace options : but it does present a problem in balancing the attack with batting depth. Does anyone want to see this fragile batting top seven followed by 8 to 11 consisting of Leach/Broad/Anderson/Stone ? I think Overton has to play : one good effect of the Robinson exit is we get another look at him to see whether he has actually improved at the International standard.
The batting will doubtless stay the same for want of options. They could , I suppose play Billings to keep and let Bracey bat in Crawley's spot but I think it unlikely. So a very ordinary top seven by Test standards will ride forth again.
NZ will presumably want to give Boult a run out. If they think like England and want to treat this as a practice match I guess they could rest Southee or Jamieson... but I suspect they will either take the risk of a longer tail or go spinless and play all four main pace men.
Root needs to win the toss and score big himself or I reckon England's long home run without a series loss could be under severe threat...

Rain saved Eng and sank my money on NZ

And Eng suspends Ollie Robinson from all international cricket
Wow
Chop his arms and stone him to death

Dunno how strong he is,the ignominy & trauma of this way over the top action could kill his career

alfie wrote:Honestly reckon the ECB has gone overboard on this Robinson issue for fear of appearing insincere with their (commendable) anti racism stance. Suspending Robinson (even for just one match) for puerile unfunny and rather unpleasant tweets made in his late teenage years strikes me as a bit of an overkill. He has suffered public embarrassment at a time when he would otherwise have been generally lauded for a fine debut performance ; has apologised for his youthful bad behaviour ; and as far as we know hasn't displayed any signs in recent years that he actually holds racist views  (one might suspect that as he shares a county dressing room with more than one mixed race team mate any such issues would have come to the surface) : surely that should have been enough to settle the matter ?
Comparisons with the Overton business are not really valid.  That was actually cricket related and contemporary , hence a matter that warranted disciplinary action by the governing body. This - however offensive the tweets might be to many - predates Robinson's employment by many years so does not seem to me a matter that comes within their jurisdiction.
I am aware that employers these days routinely check a potential employee's social media before hiring. However I am not sure many would be looking to take action against a satisfactory staff member if some unattractive but less than actually criminal behaviour from ten years ago were suddenly revealed...the difference here of course is the public nature of a sportsman's work.

In other words this (suspension and "investigation") is a PR stunt. I guess many will applaud but I'm not one of them.

Something about needing to be without sin to cast the first stone...

I'm very much with Alfie on this.

I would just add that if the ECB were sincere about their concern as to Robinson's past actions, they should have suspended Robinson with immediate effect and withdrawn him from this Test even though it had started and England would have had to play on with ten men.

Shortly after the story had broken, Atherton suggested on Sky that Silverwood's approach was to fully back Robinson until the end of the match. I then thought such an approach was feeble and hypocritical. Talk about running with the hare and then switching to the hounds!

If any of us in our work had been accused of something warranting an apparently serious investigation, would we expect our employer to say, ''you'll be suspended pending an investigation but before it starts, you need to hang around and finish the important job you're working on''?

Struggling to see why Robinson should garner any sympathy, if my employer suddenly found a sleuth of racist tweets then I'd fully expect to be dragged up and asked what the hell is going on (spoiler: if you don't want to be dragged up for racist and sexist tweets, don't post racist and sexist tweets, it's not difficult to not do that as an adult). And again, it is not hard to find this stuff...it's literally a twenty second search at most on twitter for a fan to do this...it's how the funny old Jofra Archer tweets (the old Jofradamus moments) are found right away. When you're suddenly exposed to maybe hundreds of millions more fans on an international stage, might not be the worst thing for an agent/mate to have a scroll back for an hour or two on the timeline...

Separate from Robinson himself, I am struggling to see what needs investigating here - looks pretty black and white to me. And nor do I think Robinson should be banished forever, missing a test or two is hardly the end of life as some are painting either if that is the punishment.

As others have noted, it would be rather ludicrous to pull him out of the side for this, to then replace him with Craig Overton...as JDizzle pointed out his offence was more serious, and the punishment was laughably swept under the rug...and Overton's "defence" appears to be well I have an Asian teammate so how can I have said something racist...which is also ridiculous.

As for the game, I'm pretty surprised at the general media reaction that England should've "gone for it", if a badly out of form/inexperienced England batting side had collapsed in a heap playing shots chasing the target New Zealand set would they have got a free pass from the press? Highly doubt it...to come away from a game where they've been outplayed, lost what was a bad toss to lose, with a draw is fine enough for me - and not sure they should've "risked it".
In fact, the New Zealanders seem to be getting away rather scot free with only taking 3 wickets of what is an out of form/inexperienced batting lineup (and not exactly striving for loads in that final session).

Looking ahead to Edgbaston, unless they turn up and it looks like Mumbai under foot, I think England should stick with the same strategy as here - but Stone in for Wood (bowled a lot of overs this game, and a quick turnaround), and then Overton in for Robinson, if Woakes remains unavailable. If the pitch is going to be taking spin, I think Leach in for Robinson...and they will just have to lump a pretty weak 8-11 and hope the top 7 does the business.

As for New Zealand, providing he is fit, bringing Boult back in to replace the toothless and untrusted Santner is the most obvious call of all time. If Boult isn't fit, then play an actual bowler instead of Santner...for as bold and correct the Conway selection was for this first test, the Santner one was as negative and incorrect (the very good Simon Doull pointed out many times how Williamson doesn't trust Santner's bowling, which makes the selection even more baffling). Ajaz Patel is a decent spin bowler, and has proved on occasion very effective in the last innings of the game.

The Craig Overton situation is far more concerning to me, someone known to have made racist comments directly at an opposition player verified by the standing umpire at the time. As JD also rightfully mentions his recent comments about Azhar Ali were alarming and suggest something more sinister, that he is in line to replace Robinson is going to open up a real can of worms, you cannot replace stupidity with outright racism.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Struggling to see why Robinson should garner any sympathy, if my employer suddenly found a sleuth of racist tweets then I'd fully expect to be dragged up and asked what the hell is going on (spoiler: if you don't want to be dragged up for racist and sexist tweets, don't post racist and sexist tweets, it's not difficult to not do that as an adult). And again, it is not hard to find this stuff...it's literally a twenty second search at most on twitter for a fan to do this...it's how the funny old Jofra Archer tweets (the old Jofradamus moments) are found right away. When you're suddenly exposed to maybe hundreds of millions more fans on an international stage, might not be the worst thing for an agent/mate to have a scroll back for an hour or two on the timeline...

Separate from Robinson himself, I am struggling to see what needs investigating here - looks pretty black and white to me. And nor do I think Robinson should be banished forever, missing a test or two is hardly the end of life as some are painting either if that is the punishment.

As others have noted, it would be rather ludicrous to pull him out of the side for this, to then replace him with Craig Overton...as JDizzle pointed out his offence was more serious, and the punishment was laughably swept under the rug...and Overton's "defence" appears to be well I have an Asian teammate so how can I have said something racist...which is also ridiculous.

As for the game, I'm pretty surprised at the general media reaction that England should've "gone for it", if a badly out of form/inexperienced England batting side had collapsed in a heap playing shots chasing the target New Zealand set would they have got a free pass from the press? Highly doubt it...to come away from a game where they've been outplayed, lost what was a bad toss to lose, with a draw is fine enough for me - and not sure they should've "risked it".
In fact, the New Zealanders seem to be getting away rather scot free with only taking 3 wickets of what is an out of form/inexperienced batting lineup (and not exactly striving for loads in that final session).

Looking ahead to Edgbaston, unless they turn up and it looks like Mumbai under foot, I think England should stick with the same strategy as here - but Stone in for Wood (bowled a lot of overs this game, and a quick turnaround), and then Overton in for Robinson, if Woakes remains unavailable. If the pitch is going to be taking spin, I think Leach in for Robinson...and they will just have to lump a pretty weak 8-11 and hope the top 7 does the business.

As for New Zealand, providing he is fit, bringing Boult back in to replace the toothless and untrusted Santner is the most obvious call of all time. If Boult isn't fit, then play an actual bowler instead of Santner...for as bold and correct the Conway selection was for this first test, the Santner one was as negative and incorrect (the very good Simon Doull pointed out many times how Williamson doesn't trust Santner's bowling, which makes the selection even more baffling). Ajaz Patel is a decent spin bowler, and has proved on occasion very effective in the last innings of the game.

Absolutely spot on throughout.

Robinson has been a very silly boy but that was eight years ago. To kick him out of the squad I find is a bit unfair as he has given a full apology. Surely, he'll be back in the squad for the India series? After all he's being punished for something that happened eight years ago so not to select him again would be way too severe a punishment. After all others who have admitted to ball-tampering and cheating have been given another chance. On top of that Robinson was England's stand out player. Delivered with his bowling and batting.

Robinson may find it tough to get back in the squad. He was (probably) only picked for this one because Woakes and Curran are out; once the Indian test series starts those players will be back.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:As others have noted, it would be rather ludicrous to pull him out of the side for this, to then replace him with Craig Overton...as JDizzle pointed out his offence was more serious, and the punishment was laughably swept under the rug...and Overton's "defence" appears to be well I have an Asian teammate so how can I have said something racist...which is also ridiculous.

In a roundabout way the Overton situation sums up why it's important to take strong action in these issues. Due to it being swept under the rug we now face a situation where Robinson might face a harsher punishment than Overton. If Robinson is banned for 1 Test that's arguable more severe than Overton missing 2 CC matches. Which would feel farcical.

What's causing that situation isn't a harsh sanction for Robinson (personally I think 1 Test would be reasonable) but a pathetic punishment for Overton's offence.

If weak action or no action is taken for one offence then when the next one rolls around everyone will point to the previous action and expect it to be proportional.

I thought Vithushan Ehantharajah spoke well on Sky when he said that, "what we've seen over the last year is a correction of sorts, but it's not a correction from the norm it's a correction to the norm". It's an important point in my opinion. These issues have been brushed under the carpet too long, Overton's 2 match ban is a clear cut example of that. Robinson facing a sanction shouldn't be shocking and Overton getting such a lax sanction should be shocking, but it feels that some view it the other way round.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Struggling to see why Robinson should garner any sympathy, if my employer suddenly found a sleuth of racist tweets then I'd fully expect to be dragged up and asked what the hell is going on (spoiler: if you don't want to be dragged up for racist and sexist tweets, don't post racist and sexist tweets, it's not difficult to not do that as an adult). And again, it is not hard to find this stuff...it's literally a twenty second search at most on twitter for a fan to do this...

...

Hi Olly - Not wishing to support Robinson's earlier actions but following your analogy and given how seriously Robinson's current employer, the ECB, is apparently viewing matters, shouldn't the ECB have done a bit of due diligence before selecting him for the last Test? As you say, it's not difficult to do.

It's also not as if he didn't have some history. Although I don't know the exact timeline of events, no one should be that shocked by what Robinson was up to nine years ago. This was around the time he was sacked by Yorkshire for various continued disciplinary breaches.

I would like to think he has put those days behind him and merited his Test opportunity which he took so well. That might be wishful thinking on my part but I would mention that Sussex appointed him vice-captain of their Championship side last season. That doesn't put him in a ranking alongside Mother Theresa but I doubt they would have done it if they had current concerns.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:In fact, the New Zealanders seem to be getting away rather scot free with only taking 3 wickets of what is an out of form/inexperienced batting lineup (and not exactly striving for loads in that final session).

I do think New Zealand were overly negative with the ball in this test. There was that evening session on day two where they let the game drift; they bowled terribly to Burns, initially, essentially letting him have about 50-60 easy runs in the first innings; and they were far from getting the right intensity in the final session of the test, even though they carried on for an hour longer than necessary.

Duty281 wrote:Robinson may find it tough to get back in the squad. He was (probably) only picked for this one because Woakes and Curran are out; once the Indian test series starts those players will be back.

This is an unfortunate fact that could make this rumble on and on, particularly for part time cricket fans looking for something to be outraged by.

Whilst Robinson is a very good bowler I personally wouldn't yet pick him ahead of Woakes if we're expecting either a flat deck or a seaming wicket, or ahead of Surran if we're expecting swing. Woakes in particular for me would almost always be in the XI in home conditions when he's fully fit.

Missing T2 could lead to a situation where he then doesn't get back in on merit until possibly next summer. Which would give plenty of fuel for conspiracy theories that he's been secretly banned for longer than the announced sanction.

I think Robinson has shown enough in that game to move ahead of Woakes in the pecking order for an Overseas test, his bounce and extra height and ability to seam it on what was a relatively unhelpful wicket, is something Woakes just can’t offer overseas.
At home though, Woakes is an automatic pick in the XI for me - unreal player in English conditions

Bess called into the squad would suggest to me they’re intending to play Leach, and Bess is injury cover

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Struggling to see why Robinson should garner any sympathy, if my employer suddenly found a sleuth of racist tweets then I'd fully expect to be dragged up and asked what the hell is going on (spoiler: if you don't want to be dragged up for racist and sexist tweets, don't post racist and sexist tweets, it's not difficult to not do that as an adult). And again, it is not hard to find this stuff...it's literally a twenty second search at most on twitter for a fan to do this...

...

Hi Olly - Not wishing to support Robinson's earlier actions but following your analogy and given how seriously Robinson's current employer, the ECB, is apparently viewing matters, shouldn't the ECB have done a bit of due diligence before selecting him for the last Test? As you say, it's not difficult to do.

It's also not as if he didn't have some history. Although I don't know the exact timeline of events, no one should be that shocked by what Robinson was up to nine years ago.  This was around the time he was sacked by Yorkshire for various continued disciplinary breaches.

I would like to think he has put those days behind him and merited his Test opportunity which he took so well. That might be wishful thinking on my part but I would mention that Sussex appointed him vice-captain of their Championship side last season. That doesn't put him in a ranking alongside Mother Theresa but I doubt they would have done it if they had current concerns.

To be honest Guildford it shocks me that players and the ECB don’t do it! They must pay enough media/comms people and have agents...surely someone can do it!

There's also the fact that a former England coach is tagged in one of the posts, I find it hard to believe that this wasn't known about prior to his selection.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Struggling to see why Robinson should garner any sympathy, if my employer suddenly found a sleuth of racist tweets then I'd fully expect to be dragged up and asked what the hell is going on (spoiler: if you don't want to be dragged up for racist and sexist tweets, don't post racist and sexist tweets, it's not difficult to not do that as an adult). And again, it is not hard to find this stuff...it's literally a twenty second search at most on twitter for a fan to do this...

...

Hi Olly - Not wishing to support Robinson's earlier actions but following your analogy and given how seriously Robinson's current employer, the ECB, is apparently viewing matters, shouldn't the ECB have done a bit of due diligence before selecting him for the last Test? As you say, it's not difficult to do.

It's also not as if he didn't have some history. Although I don't know the exact timeline of events, no one should be that shocked by what Robinson was up to nine years ago.  This was around the time he was sacked by Yorkshire for various continued disciplinary breaches.

I would like to think he has put those days behind him and merited his Test opportunity which he took so well. That might be wishful thinking on my part but I would mention that Sussex appointed him vice-captain of their Championship side last season. That doesn't put him in a ranking alongside Mother Theresa but I doubt they would have done it if they had current concerns.

To be honest Guildford it shocks me that players and the ECB don’t do it! They must pay enough media/comms people and have agents...surely someone can do it!

Whilst agreeing it is frankly unbelievable that the ECB don’t check these things for all players they call up (I would wager a lot of tweets were deleted by England players this weekend just in case!), not sure just deleting them so no-one ever sees them makes it okay. It would however have given Robinson the chance to hold his hands up and say he is different guy now and avoid this ludicrous situation we find ourselves in though where he is stuck in no man’s land.

England fined 40% of their match fee for a slow over rate. Will that stop it? No.

JDizzle wrote:England fined 40% of their match fee for a slow over rate. Will that stop it? No.

I think the sad truth is that the ICC and boards just don't mind the slow over rates. Bigger breaks between overs mean more ad breaks for broadcasters which presumably means bigger broadcasting deals.

If they want to stop it you just need to follow the same course as the Blast does where slow over rates lead to a significant and immediate in game penalty. We'd see teams speed up overnight.

The Blast uses a runs penalty if the 20th over hasn't begun before a certain cutoff. I believe it was Jeremy Coney on TMS during T1 that suggested if the bowling side falls a certain number of overs behind the rate they lose 1 fielder until they catch up the rate. There are lots of options for in game penalties but there needs to be a strict cutoff for what an acceptable over rate is and then tough penalties for not sticking to it.

It's a bit like the front foot no ball situation when the free hit was brought in. There was gnashing of teeth over free hits tipping things further in the batsman's favour but as if by magic the best white ball sides pretty much stopped bowling front foot no balls. Only strict in game penalties will lead to that sort of sudden change.

JDizzle wrote:England fined 40% of their match fee for a slow over rate. Will that stop it? No.

It's very simple:

1) Umpires need to be firmer. Stop the endless procession of people wandering onto the field to offer drinks/gloves/advice etc. It doesn't happen in the county game - where they often get through more than 90 overs in 6 hours - so it shouldn't happen in the test game.

2) Ban the captain for a slow over rate. One-match ban for the first offence, two-matches for the second offence etc. England would soon up the over rate if they had to lose Joe Root for a test or two against India or Australia.

It's a complicated one. While the tweets were in any context unacceptable, it's really hard not to see this as the ECB covering their own backsides that they didn't bother to check this amid the media storm. I'm kinda struggling to see what purpose a suspension holds beyond giving them an excuse to not pick him for the second test. A hastily written apology doesn't give him a chance to properly show contrition and/or that he has grown since that time.

Back on the cricket ahead.

Dawid Malan chose a very good time to score 199 in his FC return for Yorkshire. Given he was one of few to do OK in Australia on the last tour he must have a shot at a recall if he continues performing well.

I'd guess that if Bracey can get some runs and Crawley struggles again in T2 that Bracey may get a chance at 3 in this summer. I'd certainly like to see Bracey get a chance in the top 3 given it's where he has shown talent for Gloucestershire.

With the top order looking so shaky Malan must be in with a shot if he keeps batting at 3 for Yorkshire and scoring runs though.

A second England player may be falling foul of the mob for something he may have wrote when he was a child.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57393217

Duty281 wrote:A second England player may be falling foul of the mob for something he may have wrote when he was a child.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57393217

Unsubstantiated rumours it's Dom Bess as he deactivated his Twitter account shortly after being added to the squad.

Oh no 15 year old says something stupid.

king_carlos wrote:

JDizzle wrote:England fined 40% of their match fee for a slow over rate. Will that stop it? No.

I think the sad truth is that the ICC and boards just don't mind the slow over rates. Bigger breaks between overs mean more ad breaks for broadcasters which presumably means bigger broadcasting deals.

If they want to stop it you just need to follow the same course as the Blast does where slow over rates lead to a significant and immediate in game penalty. We'd see teams speed up overnight.

The Blast uses a runs penalty if the 20th over hasn't begun before a certain cutoff. I believe it was Jeremy Coney on TMS during T1 that suggested if the bowling side falls a certain number of overs behind the rate they lose 1 fielder until they catch up the rate. There are lots of options for in game penalties but there needs to be a strict cutoff for what an acceptable over rate is and then tough penalties for not sticking to it.

It's a bit like the front foot no ball situation when the free hit was brought in. There was gnashing of teeth over free hits tipping things further in the batsman's favour but as if by magic the best white ball sides pretty much stopped bowling front foot no balls. Only strict in game penalties will lead to that sort of sudden change.

Agree Carlos, and as I've said before there also needs to be punishment for the umpires involved - ultimately their role is there to not only enforce the laws of the game when it comes to dismissals etc, but also ensure play is completed quickly enough.
Obviously over rates are going to be a tad slower compared to olden times, with the advent of DRS and reviews taking up some more time...so I do think particularly in this country there needs to be a little more flexibility in terms of timings. I'm sure there is a good reason, but why if there is overs lost the day before, can't they start at 10:30am rather than 11am?
And on a day where light isn't an issue, why can't they stay on the field until 7pm or even later if needed? As Duty says, they stay on as late as needed on the final day, but not the other four - which makes no sense!

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

JDizzle wrote:England fined 40% of their match fee for a slow over rate. Will that stop it? No.

I think the sad truth is that the ICC and boards just don't mind the slow over rates. Bigger breaks between overs mean more ad breaks for broadcasters which presumably means bigger broadcasting deals.

If they want to stop it you just need to follow the same course as the Blast does where slow over rates lead to a significant and immediate in game penalty. We'd see teams speed up overnight.

The Blast uses a runs penalty if the 20th over hasn't begun before a certain cutoff. I believe it was Jeremy Coney on TMS during T1 that suggested if the bowling side falls a certain number of overs behind the rate they lose 1 fielder until they catch up the rate. There are lots of options for in game penalties but there needs to be a strict cutoff for what an acceptable over rate is and then tough penalties for not sticking to it.

It's a bit like the front foot no ball situation when the free hit was brought in. There was gnashing of teeth over free hits tipping things further in the batsman's favour but as if by magic the best white ball sides pretty much stopped bowling front foot no balls. Only strict in game penalties will lead to that sort of sudden change.

Agree Carlos, and as I've said before there also needs to be punishment for the umpires involved - ultimately their role is there to not only enforce the laws of the game when it comes to dismissals etc, but also ensure play is completed quickly enough.
Obviously over rates are going to be a tad slower compared to olden times, with the advent of DRS and reviews taking up some more time...so I do think particularly in this country there needs to be a little more flexibility in terms of timings. I'm sure there is a good reason, but why if there is overs lost the day before, can't they start at 10:30am rather than 11am?
And on a day where light isn't an issue, why can't they stay on the field until 7pm or even later if needed? As Duty says, they stay on as late as needed on the final day, but not the other four - which makes no sense!

Interestingly (or not), the first day (Friday 18th June) of the Test Championship Final between New Zealand and India at the Rose Bowl is scheduled to start at 10:30am.

Guessing for broadcast reasons.

I do sort of understand why the start time isn't changed, conditions in England can be nigh on unplayable at 10.30 and whilst it is only 30 minutes it can have a significant bearing on the result of a match.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:
Obviously over rates are going to be a tad slower compared to olden times, with the advent of DRS and reviews taking up some more time...so I do think particularly in this country there needs to be a little more flexibility in terms of timings. I'm sure there is a good reason, but why if there is overs lost the day before, can't they start at 10:30am rather than 11am?
And on a day where light isn't an issue, why can't they stay on the field until 7pm or even later if needed? As Duty says, they stay on as late as needed on the final day, but not the other four - which makes no sense!

I think it is to do with policing isn't it? I could have made this up and I don't know the story but I'm sure I read it is to do with policing and certain rules around the safe transition from public transport to venues. Probably not relevant as crowds are reduced at the moment but would be a consideration when capacities are full.

I assume if things are known in advance (such as the WTC that GB alludes to) then the police can make arrangements but in a normal game (i.e starting at 11:00 on day one) the authorities don't know what is going to happen with the weather/time over the next 5 days so need some order to start times to ensure enough police presence.

On the Robinson situation.
Firstly, I don't accept the humour/joke defense at all. Racist comments being projected as jokes just can't be acceptable to people who have experienced racism on a daily basis. Robinson put those tweets out in the public domain, through social media. Not acceptable really, and surely not funny for many.
However, banning him from the squad after 9 years and first selecting him for various England squads? The ECB just comes across as covering up yet again. There were issues with some players like Rafiq at Yorkshire, umpires from minority communities, the Overton coverup as mentioned here. Think it became important for the ECB to be seen to be doing something serious, and Robinson, ultimately because of his own mistakes, got caught up in that. So overboard from ECB, touch unfortunate for Robinson, but ultimately, he has to blame himself more than anyone else. And tough, hard questions need to be asked of the ECB...

Now that Robinson is ruled out, they should have used it as an opportunity to bring Woakes or Curran in, and played the spinner. Bess if they needed a bit more batting cover, or Leach who is a very good number 10 and a decent number 9. or if he's available, Moeen for Lawrence and 4 quicks. With their flat pitch strategy, Root will have to win most tosses, else they will end up compromising on their bowling strength, by bowling some of them to ground sooner rather than later.

Soul Requiem wrote:Oh no 15 year old says something stupid.

Two thoughts there.

Firstly, being a juvenile as opposed to legally an adult in Robinson's case does mean whichever player this second case is has been treated differently thus far. Their name has been kept private for starters.

Secondly, racist comments regardless of the players age don't come under the blanket of 'child says something stupid' in my opinion. A players age at the time should be taken into account as all of us were once immature, didn't understand the world as we might today or understand the harm our actions and words could cause. Racist comments aren't the same as a kid swearing in the classroom or running through fields of wheat though.

I did plenty of dumb stuff when I was 15 and was still doing plenty of dumb things when I was 18 and 19 which is the age Robinson was with his tweets. I can honestly say I wasn't making racist comments though. Let alone posting (i.e. publishing) them on public forums. Whilst age and immaturity needs to be considered it doesn't wipe the slate clean in these issues.

The phrase in question from this second instance of c****y actually brings to mind a story from when I was playing school rugby around 15, so a similar age to said player. Our school had a good number of overseas students from Honk Kong and we were playing a match against a local rival. With about 20 minutes to play our skipper said to the ref that one of our Honk Kongese player had been called that term at the bottom of a ruck. The ref (their coach) started saying he was incredibly sorry but didn't hear it (which seemed reasonable to be fair given it was in a ruck) and would deal with it after the game when their skipper (about 15-years-old like this player) spoke up saying he heard his teammate say it, named the teammate (one of their best players), who was instantly red carded by their coach and he apologised, shook hands with the player he offended as he left the field. The player in question was suspended for 2 days and mailed a hand written apology for his actions to our player, who I shared a dorm with in our boarding house at the time.

I remember the letter vividly as the player in question had only joined our school that year, so was still learning English. He spoke it very well but writing and reading could be a struggle. Given the letter was hand written he needed help reading all of it so he asked me to read it to him. The issue being taken so serious and a written apology meant so much to him that he wrote back to the opposition player asking permission to pin the letter on our house noticeboard so others could hopefully understand too.

In short I strongly believe in giving people who make mistakes chances to learn and grow. We'd live in a horrible world if we didn't. I also believe that mistakes made at a young age should be viewed far more leniently due to how immature we all were when younger. I strongly reject the idea that casual racism is a normal, understandable thing for juveniles or young adults to be engaged in though. If that is considered the status quo it shows how far we have to come.

msp83 wrote:Now that Robinson is ruled out, they should have used it as an opportunity to bring Woakes or Curran in, and played the spinner. Bess if they needed a bit more batting cover, or Leach who is a very good number 10 and a decent number 9. or if he's available, Moeen for Lawrence and 4 quicks. With their flat pitch strategy, Root will have to win most tosses, else they will end up compromising on their bowling strength, by bowling some of them to ground sooner rather than later.

I think Woakes should be in the squad for T2 but he isn't sadly.

Mo isn't in the squad either. He played a 2nd XI T20 game for Worcestershire a few days ago but that's his only cricket since returning from the IPL. Mo also hasn't scored a Test century since 2016 it's worth noting. I'm a big fan of Mo but being a top 7 batsman in Tests is a ship that sailed a while ago. Dan Vettori has a better Test batting record than Mo for instance!

I hope England pick Leach, bring Stone in for Wood, continue with Broad and Anderson. It's a diabolical tail but I think the best balance we can get without Woakes or Surran.

We don't have another Test until August after this so Broad and Anderson should be OK for consecutive Tests. With Stokes, Woakes and Surran presumably back for the India series there should be more scope to rotate them there anyway.

king_carlos wrote:

msp83 wrote:Now that Robinson is ruled out, they should have used it as an opportunity to bring Woakes or Curran in, and played the spinner. Bess if they needed a bit more batting cover, or Leach who is a very good number 10 and a decent number 9. or if he's available, Moeen for Lawrence and 4 quicks. With their flat pitch strategy, Root will have to win most tosses, else they will end up compromising on their bowling strength, by bowling some of them to ground sooner rather than later.

I think Woakes should be in the squad for T2 but he isn't sadly.

Mo isn't in the squad either. He played a 2nd XI T20 game for Worcestershire a few days ago but that's his only cricket since returning from the IPL. Mo also hasn't scored a Test century since 2016 it's worth noting. I'm a big fan of Mo but being a top 7 batsman in Tests is a ship that sailed a while ago. Dan Vettori has a better Test batting record than Mo for instance!

I hope England pick Leach, bring Stone in for Wood, continue with Broad and Anderson. It's a diabolical tail but I think the best balance we can get without Woakes or Surran.

We don't have another Test until August after this so Broad and Anderson should be OK for consecutive Tests. With Stokes, Woakes and Surran presumably back for the India series there should be more scope to rotate them there anyway.

Hi carlos
As for the England balance, Stokes getting back into the mix should solve a lot of issues as they can play whoever is their best spinner, along with 1 or both of Broad and Anderson, one of Archer, Wood or Stone, and one of Curran and Woakes. Robinson, Overton and the rest can be the backup.
As for Moeen, I can understand better, what KP_Fan was saying during the India series. Moeen isn't a very consistent bowler. But among Leach, Bess and him, I don't think the other 2 are clearly ahead of him. They don't trust Leach even on a flat track as part of a 4 man attack as he doesn't offer control in the first innings. They don't trust Bess either to consistently provide wickets or control. With Moeen, one thing that should be said is that he for most of his test career, has been a consistent wicket-taking bowler. He has never been one for control, but he has played leading roles with the ball for many a test win for England. With the full squad available, think a team of
Burns
Sibley
Crawley/Bracy/whoever
Root
Stokes
Pope/someone?
Buttler/Foakes
Ali
3 among Anderson, Broad, Archer, Wood, Stone, Woakes and Curran
Take Moeen's runs only as bonus. Just leave him alone at 8 as far as the batting is concerned.
Even for the last game, think him batting 7 instead of Lawrence would have been a much better choice.
This is not a case of a player becoming much better when they spend time out of the side. It is a result of observing Leach and Bess, and far more importantly, the way England team management seems to be treating both of them, there seems to be no trust on their abilities...

Moeen Ali has 5 Test hundreds.

Taking the batsmen from the last Test sans Root, so Burns, Sibley, Crawley, Lawrence, Pope and Bracey... I reckon I would set the over/under of the number of them who pass Moeen's 5 Test hundreds at 2.5.

I fancy Pope to do it, one of Burns and Sibley and then it gets dicey. You would say Crawley is the most likely but I wouldn't bet my house on it.

Have some people even seen Moeen bat or bowl over the last three years?

Moeen was once a fine, fine test player, but his time has passed in the first-class arena. You might as well discuss the merits of England recalling Flintoff or Swann.

JDizzle wrote:Moeen Ali has 5 Test hundreds.

Taking the batsmen from the last Test sans Root, so Burns, Sibley, Crawley, Lawrence, Pope and Bracey... I reckon I would set the over/under of the number of them who pass Moeen's 5 Test hundreds at 2.5.

I fancy Pope to do it, one of Burns and Sibley and then it gets dicey. You would say Crawley is the most likely but I wouldn't bet my house on it.

I'd probably agree. That said Mo has played 61 Tests to get those 5 centuries. Whilst there are players in England's top 7 I'm skeptical of at Test level even the ones I rate least I reckon might get 5 tons if they were given 61 Tests to do so!

Pope has an abundance of talent he just needs to stop finding ways to get himself out and such start forcing bowlers to find ways to get him out. Southee's dismissal in the first innings was an experienced bit of bowling but all too easy. Bread and butter outswingers from slightly wider on the crease to drag Pope even further across his stumps than his off stump guard usually does, then one from tight to the stumps that nips down the Lords hill. Done.

I like Bracey from what I've seen with Gloucestershire. I think he could be a good option at 3.

When one of Burns or Sibley stumble I just hope that Hameed can fulfill his talent. Since the Strauss and Cook partnership ended I still think Hameed is the most talented opener England have tried. God knows there have been enough as well!

msp83 wrote:
As for Moeen, I can understand better, what KP_Fan was saying during the India series. Moeen isn't a very consistent bowler. But among Leach, Bess and him, I don't think the other 2 are clearly ahead of him. They don't trust Leach even on a flat track as part of a 4 man attack as he doesn't offer control in the first innings. They don't trust Bess either to consistently provide wickets or control. With Moeen, one thing that should be said is that he for most of his test career, has been  a consistent wicket-taking bowler. He has never been one for control, but he has played leading roles with the ball for many a test win for England.

Mo's stats tell a really good story with his bowling. His strike rate is excellent and he's taken a decent haul of wickets overall but his economy rate and average are poor. As are his 5 and 10 wicket haul stats. He's a bowler who will take wickets frequently but goes for a lot of runs and rarely bowl consistently enough to have long spells which would allow him to make match defining contributions by taking more five-fers. I ​really love Mo as a cricket, he's so much fun to watch but his time in Test cricket has largely passed I think.

If Woakes and Mo were in the same Test side I'd bat Woakes higher these days.

I might pick Mo over Bess still despite Mo's showing nothing in Tests for so long but that's as I simply think Bess needs time in county cricket learning his trade. Being a good number 8 bat and excellent fielder has already helped his Test career a lot. Bess just needs lots and lots of overs with Yorkshire learning to bowl in different circumstances. He's only 23. Swann didn't become a Test regular until 28. Give Bess time away from the spotlight and reassess in a year or two is my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8xatR3zIbQ

That's a really good video from Jarrod Kimber going into Leach, Bess, Mo and spin in England in general.

I think Leach is our best spinner. He has weaknesses tying down an end in the first innings, staying economical on flatter tracks and bowling to lefties but Leach is far and away England's best spinner for bowling a side out in the 4th innings if the pitch is turning.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57407788

The mob has closed in. Morgan, Anderson, Buttler all under the spotlight. I had heard holier than thou Root was possibly implicated by the emergence of some 'laddish' tweets (since deleted), as well as about half a dozen other England players, but no mention in this BBC article.

The ECB has now tied itself in a gordian knot through their earlier stupidity, hence my concerns posted earlier about 'strange precedents' being established.

If they don't suspend and force numerous England players to make public apologies, then they have treated Ollie Robinson in a disproportionate and grossly unfair manner. If they do act consistently and suspend and force numerous England players to make public apologies, it'll make the ECB a laughing stock, plus it'll be difficult to field a team for Thursday's test.

By 'the mob', is that your disparaging term for people who don't like racism/sexism?

JuliusHMarx wrote:By 'the mob', is that your disparaging term for people who don't like racism/sexism?

'The mob' is my term for people who trawl social media and choose to be offended at juvenile jokes/humour from a time long ago, and then seek to damage, and possibly end, these players' careers.

As I alluded to previously, my view would be different if Robinson (or any of these players), for example, had posted actual extremist viewpoints, not some juvenile jokes. The former would need to be investigated; the latter doesn't need to be.

As I also alluded to, a person should never apologise to the mob because they'll never stop. Robinson did (though he was practically forced to) and now the mob has moved on other targets. The ECB has put itself in a gordian knot as a result. The ECB must now suspend James Anderson, and ask him to make a public apology, and carry out an investigation, otherwise they are guilty of favouritism.

Duty281 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57407788

The mob has closed in. Morgan, Anderson, Buttler all under the spotlight. I had heard holier than thou Root was possibly implicated by the emergence of some 'laddish' tweets (since deleted), as well as about half a dozen other England players, but no mention in this BBC article.

The ECB has now tied itself in a gordian knot through their earlier stupidity, hence my concerns posted earlier about 'strange precedents' being established.

If they don't suspend and force numerous England players to make public apologies, then they have treated Ollie Robinson in a disproportionate and grossly unfair manner. If they do act consistently and suspend and force numerous England players to make public apologies, it'll make the ECB a laughing stock, plus it'll be difficult to field a team for Thursday's test.

As with all things it needs to be on a case by case basis though? In order that I've seen them reported we've got:

- Robinson's tweets which include explicit comments about Muslims being suicide bombers (tweeted as a young adult)
- Morgan, Buttler and McCullum's tweets where they implicitly disparage Indian fans who don't speak English perfectly despite it being in many cases their 3rd language (tweeted as adults)
- The unnamed players tweet which includes a racial slur denigrating Chinese people (tweeted as a minor)
- Anderson's tweet telling Broad he has a 'lesbian haircut' (tweeted as an adult)

Those are 4 different cases that will require different responses on a case by case basis surely?

I actually remember the Morgan, Buttler and McCullum stuff as a friend showed me them (I don't actually have a Twitter account) back when they were being made. I'd be very happy to see them apologise for it as I remember thinking at the time that they were being ungrateful a*** holes. A large part of the reason players such as those three could command bigger salaries than cricket had ever seen was T20 cricket taking off in India. To belittle fans who idolised them for not being able to write them adoring English messages in perfect syntax was truly pathetic.

Finally, I'm getting sick people saying Robinson's comments were 'juvenile jokes'. For that defence to hold any water it relies on two things. One, that the tweets fall under what most would consider 'juvenile behaviour', which I don't believe casual racism does or should. Two, that the person in question is a juvenile, which Robinson wasn't. He was an adult. A young adult but still an adult.

Trying to brush Robinson's tweets away by saying they were juvenile jokes when A) they weren't just 'juvenile jokes' and B) Robinson wasn't a even juvenile makes about as much sense as me trying to excuse eating a teammates snickers at the weekend by bringing up my pregnancy cravings despite the fact that A) I'm not pregnant and B) I don't even have a womb.